S  CHWEN  CKFELD ' S  PARTI CI PATI ON 
Loetscher 


OF 


ffUNciri: 


MAR   3      1988 


j_^' , L-<^  L     ^p^  27  1907 

Schwenckfeld's   Participation   m 

tke  Eucliaristic  Controversy 

of  the   Sixteenth 

Century 


BY  ^^ 

FREDERICK  WILLIAM  LOETSCHER 


A   Dissertation   Presented   to   tlie    Faculty 

of  Princeton    University  for 

tKe   Degree   of   Doctor 

of  Ptilosopliy 


PHILADELPHIA: 

MacCALLA  &  COMPANY 

1906 


'^fM     ZZ  ^-ta^^Ztli,^  ,ii.<rx....,jl^^^^ 


Schwenckfeld's   Participation   in 
the  Eucharistic  Controversy       /0x 

of  the  Sixteenth  (*    ncv  171911 

Century 


^^ 


'^^fi/^iTszu^^ 


FREDERICK  WILLIAM  LOETSCHER 


A   Dissertation   Presented   to   tte   Faculty 

of  Princeton    University  for 

the   Degree   ol   Doctor 

of   Pnilosopny 


PHILADELPHIA  : 
MacCALLA  &  COMPANY 

1906 


PKEFACE. 

The  dissenters  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  no  less  than  in 
the  other  countries  of  Europe,  had  to  wait  a  long  time  before  the 
first  attempts  were  made  to  accord  them  anything  hke  a  fair  or 
adequate  historical  treatment.  The  political  or  secular  historian 
lacked  the  desire  and  the  fitness  to  do  justice  to  the  numerous 
religious  sects  in  that  age  of  bitter  theological  controversies,  while 
at  least  the  earliest  of  modern  ecclesiastical  historians  betrayed  a 
narrow  confessional  interest  which  was  not  only  blind  to  many  a 
virtue  in  the  nobler  heretics,  but  also  quite  incapable  of  estimating 
the  salutary  mfluence  of  some  of  the  heresies  themselves.  It  was 
not  till  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  therefore,  that  the  first 
really  meritorious  efforts  were  made  to  study  the  so-called  fanatics 
and  sectarians  of  this  period  with  the  sober  spirit  of  scientific 
investigation. 

It  is  especially  to  be  regretted  that  so  little  attention  had  been 
paid  to  the  life  and  work  of  Caspar  Schwenckfeld.  To  be  sure, 
Arnold  m  his  Unpartheyische  Kirchen-  loul  Keizerhisloric  and  Salig 
in  his  Historie  der  Aiigspurgischen  Confession  had  succeeded  to 
some  extent  in  securing  a  more  correct  estimate  of  the  much  mis- 
understood reformer.  But  it  still  remains  true,  that  when  we  regard 
his  strong  and  beautiful  character,  his  native  ability  and  his  ac- 
quired powers,  the  amount  as  well  as  the  origuiality  and  sugges- 
tivene-ss  of  his  literary  output,  the  extent  of  his  intercourse  with 
the  leading  spirits  of  his  age  and  his  influence  upon  them,  or  the 
nature  of  his  achievement  as  a  polemic  theologian  and  the  founder 
of  a  sect  which,  though  small,  has  added  to  the  lustre  of  his  name, 
we  cannot  but  feel  that  here  is  '  'a  man  who,  m  spite  of  his  eminent 
significance  for  the  history  of  the  Reformation,  has  not  as  yet  met 
with  a  proper  appreciation."* 

The  following  dissertation,  which  is  substantially  a  reprint  from 
The  Princeton  Theological  Review  of  this  year,t  endeavors  to  set 
forth  Schwenckfeld's  peculiar  theory  of  the  eucharist  as  related 
both  to  the  teachings  of  his  opponents  and  to  his  owTi  system  of 
theological    speculations. 

♦  Grerbert,  Geschichle  der  Strassburger  Sectenhfu-egung  zur  Zeit  der  Reformation, 
1889,  p.  132. 

t  See  the  July  and  October  numbers   of   the  Review,  pp.   352-38G,  454-500. 


The  difficulties  of  the  task  are  due  chiefly  to  the  character  of 
Schwenckfeld's  works.  His  most  important  treatises,  no  less  than 
his  letters,  aie  purely  occasional  writings,  composed,  at  least  in 
some  mstances,  with  incredible  speed.  The  style  is  loose,  repeti- 
tious, often  Luther-like  in  its  bold  and  energetic  one-sidednesses, 
unconventional  and  inconsistent  hi  theological  terminology,  and 
therefore  often  strangely  confusing  alike  to  his  contemporaries  and 
to  modern  interpreters,  the  uncertainty  of  the  language  bemg  only 
increased  by  the  desire  of  this  deeply  spiritual  reformer  to  express 
his  thoughts  and  feelings  as  much  as  possible  in  the  very  words  of 
Scripture.  Profoundly  interested  in  the  religious  questions  of  the 
day,  but  never  overcomuig  the  layman's  lack  of  training  in  theo- 
logical science,  he  never,  it  must  be  confessed,  succeeded,  in  spite 
of  his  undoubted  dialectic  gifts  and  his  extensive  acquaintance 
with  the  Bible  and  the  greatest  of  the  Chmxh  fathers,  m  bringing 
all  the  elements  of  his  thought  into  a  perfectly  harmonioas  system. 

These  considerations,  and  above  all  his  spiritualistic  tendency, 
which  in  large  part  explains  these  phenomena,  will  serve  as  an 
apologj',  if  one  were  needed,  for  the  somewhat  numerous  quotations 
from  the  sources:  a  mystic  must  be  allowed  to  speak  his  own  dialect. 
It  is  at  least  hoped  that  these  citations,  selected  from  the  great 
mass  of  possible  references,  are  such  characteristic  utterances  that 
they  can  fairly  be  regarded  as  furnishing  an  accurate  and  complete 
conception   of  Schwenckfeld's  theory   of   the   Supper. 

I  take  this  opportunitj'  of  acknowlcdguig  my  indebtedness  to 
Charles  S.  Thayer,  Ph.D.,  Librarian  of  Hartford  Theological  Semi- 
nary, for  the  loan  of  some  of  the  sources,  and  especially  to  Prof. 
H.  W.  Kriebel,  author  of  TIlc  Schwcnckfddcrs  in  Pennsylvania, 
who  kmdly  placed  at  my  disposal  his  valuable  collection  of 
Schwenckfeldiana.  Helpful  suggestions  concernmg  the  treatment  of 
the  theme  were  received  from  the  Rev.  C.  D.  Hartranft,  D.D.,  the 
editor-in-chief  of  the  Corpus  Schwenckfeldianoru7n,  now  appearing, 
as  well  as  from  Dr.  Joh.  Ficker,  Professor  of  Church  History  at 
Strassburg  in  Alsace. 

Princeton,  N.  J.,  F.  W.  L. 

October,  1906, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

I.  SOURCES. 

Schwcnckfeld's  works  have  never  been  puIJislied  in  full.  Four  folio  vohimes 
appearing  sliortly  after  his  death  contain  hi.s  most  important  literary  remains. 
They  bear  the  following  titles: 

(.4)  Epislolar  Dcs  Edlen  von  Gall  huchheynndclen  thciiwrrn  Manna'  CanjKir 
Schwcnck/eldls  von  Osaing,  seliger  gcdiichtnh,  Christlichc  Lrhrhaffte  Missiven 
odcT  Sendbriefj ,  die  cr  in  ze.it  seinc-i  Lchcns  vow  XXV.  Jarc  his  miff  das  LV. 

geschricben,  etc.,  etc.    Deh  erste  Theil.    156G.    Pp.  XXVII, 

8S0.     Referred  to  in  the  text  by  the  symbol   A . 

(B)  Epiitolar  des  Edlen  von  Got!  hochbegnadelen  Herrcn  Caspar  Schwenckfclds  von 

Ossing, Chrisiliche  Icerhafjtc  Sendbricjfc  und  selirifflen  die 

er  in  Zeit  seines  lebens  vom  XXV.  Jarc  an  biss  aujj  das  LXI 

geschrieben,  etc.     Der  ander  Theil,  in  \'ier  Bucher  underscheiden.    1570, 
pp.  146  and  C7S. 

This  therefore  is  the  first  of  the  four  books  that  were  to  have  contained  his 
correspondence  in  regard  to  the  four  great  parties  in  the  Church  of  liis  daj-,  the 
Romanists,  the  Lutherans,  the  Zwinglians,  and  the  Anabaptists.  But  the  third 
and  fourth  volumes  never  appeared.  Tlie  pages  of  this  volume  bear  the  caption, 
Sendbriefj  von  der  Bepslischen  Leerc  und  Glaubcn.     Cited  as  B. 

(C)  Das  zweite  Buck  des  andcrn  theils  dcs  Epistolars.     Darlnn  Herrcn  Caspar 

Schwenckjeldts  Sendbricjfc  begriffen,  die  er  auf  der  Luiherischen  Glauhen, 
Leere,  Sacrament  und  Kirchen,  zum  theil  an  Lulherische,  zum  theil  sonst  an 
gutherzige  Personen  geschrieben.  1570.  Pp.  1022.  Cited  as  C. 
(£))  Der  Erste  T)ieil  Der  Christlichen  Orthodoxischen  Biichcr  und  schrifjlen  des 
Edlen,  theuren.  .  .  .  Caspar  Schwenckfeldts  vom  Hauss  Ossing,  etc.,  etc. 
1564.  Pp.  974.  The  other  parts  of  this  series  never  appeared.  Oted 
as  D. 

There  are  numerous  smaller  volumes  containing  additional  treatises  and  letters 
as  well  as  later  editions  of  some  of  the  works  collected  in  the  four  folio  volumes. 
Of  tliose  to  which  I  have  had  access  the  foUo'B'ing  writings,  nearly  all  of 
which  are  printed  with  other  works,  are  the  most  important  bearing  upon  the 
subject  in  question: 

Von  der  Speise  des  Ewigen  Lebens.     1547. 

Ein  Schone  und  Herrlichc  Ausslcgung  ober  das  gantzc  sechste  Kapitel  Johannis 
von  der  Speise  des  Ewigen  Lebens.     1595,  but  written  in  1550. 

Von  den  Werckcn  Christi  und  Wie  die  Evangelia  nach  dem  geisllichen  Sinn  rccht 
verstanden  sollen  werden.  Hem,  Vom  ampt  des  H.  Geistes  in  der  christlichen 
Kirchenn. 

Ein  Christlich  Bedenken,  Ob  Judas  unnd  die  unglauhigen  falschen  Christen  den  leib 
und  das  blut  Jes-u  Christe  iyn  Kachtmal  des  Herren  empjangen ,  oder  auch 
noch   heute   empfahen   oder  niessen  mogen. 

Antzaigung  Zwayer  Arlickeln  ivarumb  dess  Lutliers  Discipel  furnemlich  Herrn  Cas- 
par Schwenckfelden  und  die  Mitbekenner  der  glorien  und  rainen  Leere  dess 
Euangelii  Christi  hasscn,  verfolgen,  und  jalschlich  beschrayen. 


VI 

Von  der  Gantzheil  Christ!,  beede  im  Leiden  vyid  im  seiner  Herrlichkclt.     1593. 

Ausslegung  dess  Euangelii  Marci  VIII.     1547. 

Aussle-gung  dots  Euangelii  Luce  XlIIl.  1547. 

Verantworlung  und  Dcjension  jiir   Casparn  Schwcnclcfclden  derm    piinclen   unnd 

Irrthumbc  damil  ihn  Doctor  Joac.hitn   von   H'o^   .  .  .  unrccht  hcschiddigl. 

1542.    16mo,  pp.  129. 
Apologia:  dassist  Verantworlung  jiir  Herrn  Caspar  Sclaecnekjcldcn  vnd  grundtliche 

Erklerung,  dass  er  die  Menschail  Christ!  gnr  kains  Wcgs  r-erlaucknet.     16mo, 

pp.  LXXXVII.     (By  some  follower  of  Schwenckf eld.) 
Abteinung  D.  Luthers  Malediction,  so  erst  durch  Flocinm  Ilh/rieum  wider  mich  ivi 

truck  ist  publicierl  ivordcn.     Item,  ]'oin  rccliten  grund  und  rcrstande  dess  H. 

Sacraments  dcs  Herrn   Nachtmals.   1555. 
Apologia  und  Erclerung  der  Schlcsicr  das  sy  den  Icijb  und  blut  Cliristi  im  Nachtmal 

dess  Herrn  und  im  gehaimnnss  rfess  hailigen  Siirramcnts  7iit   vcrlcugncn. 

1529.     (With  other  treatises.) 
Ableijnung  und  vcrantwortunj  der  jiinfftztij  Lil'jen  odcr  Calumnien  Find!  Illyrici, 

so  er  felschlich  auss  mcinen  BUchern  gezogeu,  jiingst  in  Truck  hat  lasscn 

aussgehen.   1550. 
Auffdeckhung  des  letsten  schmach  7ind  grawliche  LUgcnbuchs  so  der  grosse  feind 

Jhesu  Christ!  des  eynigen  lebendigen  Worts  Gottes  Flacius  Illyricus  Anno 

1557  wider  Herrn  Casp.  Schwcnckjeldcn  in  Truck  gcgcbcn  hat.     1558.     (By 

a  follower.) 

The  less  important  works  are  cite.'!  in  the  appropriate  places.  As  secondary 
sources  the  works  of  the  leading  reformers  who  came  into  contact  with 
Schwenckfeld  are  to  be  con.suIted,  especially  those  of  Luther,  Zwingli,  and 
Melanchtlion. 

II.    LITER.\TURE. 

The  oldciit  literature  on  Schwenckfeld,  much  of  v.hich  is  not  rcidily  acce.ssible 
in  this  country,  is  given  -with  considerable  fullness  by  Hofrmaiiii  in  the  work  cited 
in  the  following  list.     Tlicse  works  are  partlj'  biographical  and  partly  doctrinal. 

Arnold,  Gottfried:    Unpartheyische  Kirchen-und Ketzcrhisiorie.     Schaffhausen, 

1740.    Bd.  I,  Th.  II,  Buch  XVI,  c.  XX,  and  Anhang,  pp.  1246-1299. 
Barclay,   Robkrt:  The  Inner  Life  oj  the  Religious  Societies  o/  ths  Common- 

iceaUh.     London,  1879. 
Bauk,  August:    Zwinglis  Theologic,  Ihr  Werdcn  und  Ihr  System.     Halle.    Vol. 

II,   1889. 
Baur,  F.  C:    Die   christliehe  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung  in  ihrer  gcschichtlichcn 

Entwicklung.     Tubingen,  183S. 
Die  christlich  Lehre  von  der  Dreieinigkeit  und  M erischwerdung  Golles  in  ihrer 

gcschichtlichcn  Entwicklung.    Tubingen,  1841-1843. 
Zur   Geschichte    der   protestantischen    Mystik,    in    Theologische   Jahrbilcher, 

1848,   pp.   502-528. 
DoLLiNGER,  J.:  Die  Rejormation,  ihre  innere  Entxvicklung  und  ihre  Wirkungen  im 

Umjange    des    LuOierischoi    Bekenntnisses.     Vol.  I,  Ariiheira,  1853,  pp. 

236-280. 
DoRNER,  J.  A.:  Entwicklungsgeschichte  der  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christ!.     Zweiter 

Theil.     Berlin,  1853.     Pp.   624-636. 
Geschichte  der  protestantischen  Theologic,  besonders  in  Deutschland.   Miinchen, 

1867.      Pp.  176-182. 
Erbkam,  H.  W.:   Geschichte  der  protestantischen  Seklen  im  Zeitalter  der  Rejorma- 
tion.    Hamburg  und  Gotha,  184S.    Pp.  357-475. 
Article,  S.  v.,  in  Realencyklojxidic  jiir  protestatUischt-  Tlteoloe/ie  und  Kirche, 

Second  Edition,  Vol.  XIII,  776  sqg. 


Vll 

Erdmajjn:    Article,  s.  v.,  in  Allgemeinc  Deutsche  Biographie,  Vol.  XXXUI,  pp. 

403-412. 
Erlduterung  jiir  Hemi  Caspar  Schwenckfeld,  und  die  Zugethanen  seiner  Lehre. 

Suinnytaun,  1S30.     Composed  and  re\-ised  by  Pennsylvania  Schwenck- 
feld ers. 
Gerbert,  C.  :  Geschichte  der  Strassburgcr  Sectcnhewegung  zur  Zcit  der  Rejormatiun 

(1524-1534).     Stra.ssburg,  18S9. 
GoETZ,    IvARL   G.:    Die   Abendmnhlsfragc   in   ihrcr  gcschir}itlichen   Enlwichlung. 

Ein  Versuch  Hirer  Losung.     Leipzig,  1904. 
Ghunhagem,  C:    Geschichte  Schlesiens.     Vol.  II,  Gotlia,  1880. 
Hagen,  IC4.RL:    Deutschlandu  Uferarischc  und  religidxe  Vcrhaltnisse  im  Reforma- 

tionsseitalter.     Vol.  Ill,  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1868. 
Hahn,   G.   L.;    Schwenckfeld  a  Senteyitia  de  Christi  Peri^omi   el  Opere  exposiia. 

Vratisla%nae,   1847. 
Hampe,  O.:    Zur  Biographic  Kaspars   r.  Schwenckleld.     Jauer,   18S2.     (Prog., 

pp.  20.) 
Hartil^nft,  C.  D.:  Article,  s.  v.,  in  S.  M.  Jackson's    Concise  Dictionary  oj    Re- 
ligious Knowledge  and  Gazetteer.     New  York,  1891. 
Hegler,  Alfred:    Geist  und  Schrijt  he!  Sebastian  Franck.     Sine  Studie  zur 

Geschichte  des  Spiritualismus  in  der  Rejormationszeit .     Freiburg  i.  B.,  1892. 
Heyd;    Blaurer,  Schnepf,  Schwenckleld;    in   TiJhinger  Zeitschrijt  jiir  Theologie, 

183S,  No.  4,  pp.  20-48,  for  Schwenckfeld. 
HoFFJL'iNN,    Franz:     Caspar   Schwenckfelds    Lebcn  vnd   Lchren.     Erster  Theil. 

Berlin,    1897.     (Prog.,   pp.   29.) 
Kadelb.^^ch,   Oswald:     Ausjiihrlichc    Geschichte  Kaspar  v.   Schwe^ikfelds  vnd 

der  Schuvjikjelder  in   Schlcsien,  der  Ober-Lausitz  vnd  Amerika,  nebst  ihren 

Glaubensschrijten  von  16S4-1860.     Lauban,  1860.     Pp.  254. 
Keim,  Theodor:   Rejormationsblatter  der  Rcichsstadt  Esslijigen.     Esslingen,  1860. 

Die  Refonnation  der  Rcirhssiadt  Uiin.     Stuttgart,  1851. 

Kriebel,  H.  W.:    The  Schtcenrkfelders  in  Pennsylvania.     Lancaster,  Pa.,  1904. 

(Chapter   I.) 
NoACK,  LuDWiG :   Die  clirislliche  Mystik  nach  ihrem  geschichllichen  Eniwicklungs- 

gange  im  Mittelalter  und  in  der  neuern  Zeit.     Zweiter  Theil.     Konigsberg, 

1853.     Pp.  42-60. 
Planck,  G.  J.:    Geschichte  der  Entstehung,  der  V eraiuterungen  vnd  der  Bildung 

unseres    prolestantischen    Lehrbcgrifj  s .     Funften     Bandea     erster     Theil. 

Leipzig,  1798.     Pp.  75-250. 
Rosenberg,  Abraham  G.:    Schlesische  Rejormationsgeschlchte.     Breslau,  1707. 
Schenkel,  Daniel:  Das  Wcsen  des  Protestantismus  avs  den  Quellen  des  Reforma- 

tioiiszeitalters   dargestellt.     A'^ols.   I-III.     Schaffhausen,    1846-51. 
Salio,  C.  a.:    Vollstandige  Hislorie  der  Augspurgischen  Confession  und  derselben 

Apologie.     Halle,   1730. 
Schneider,  A.  F.  H.:    Ueber  den  geschichtlichen  Verlauf  der  Reformation  in  Lieg- 

niiz.     Abtlieilung   I.     Berlin,  1860.     Pp.  39. 
Schneider,    Daniel:     Unpartheyische   Priifung  des    Caspar  Schwengfelds  vnd 

Griindliche  Vertheydigung  der  Augspiirgischen  Confession.     Giessen,  1708. 
ScHULTZ,  (Jhristoph:  Compendium,  das  ist  kurze  Zusammenfassung  und  Inbegriff 

der  ChTistlichen  Glaubens-Lehren,  17S3.     Pliiladelpliia,  1830. 
Schnukker,  Chulstian  F.:    Erlauterungc.n  der  Wiirtembergischen  Kirchen-Refor- 

matious-  vnd  Gelehrten-Gesckichte.     Tubingen,   179S. 
Soffner,  Johan.nes:    Geschichte  der  Reformation  in  Schlesien.     Breslau,  1887. 
Walch,  Johann    Georo  :    Historische  und  Theologische  Einleilung  in  die  Re- 

ligions-Streitigkeiien,  wclche  sonderlich  ausser  der  Evangelisch-Lutlierischen 

Kirchcenl.-.tandtn.    Viertcr  und  fiiiifter  Thiel.    Jena,  1736.    Pp.  1004-1024. 


Weiser,  C.  Z.:  Casper  Schv'enkfeld  and  the  Schwenkleldians,  in  Tfu:  Mercershurg 
Review,  Jul}-,   1870. 

Brief  accounts  of  Schwenckfeld  and  of  his  doctrines  may  be  found  in  the 
Church  Histories  of  Kurtz,  Herzog,  Henke-Gass,  Mosheim,  and  especially 
Neidner,  Gieseler  and  Moeller-Kawerau. 

On  the  Eucharistic  Controversy  in  general,  see,  besides  the  Doctrine  Histories 
of  Hamack,  Loofs,  Seeberg,  and  Hagenbach,  the  folloTs-ing: 

Ebhard,  August:  Das  Dogma  vom  heiligen  Abendmahl  und  seine  Geschichte. 
Vol.  II,  1846, 

Hodge,  Charles:    Princeton  Review,  April,  1848. 

Nevin,  J.  W. :  Mercershurg  Review,  1850. 

K\HNis,  liARL  F.  A.:   Die  Lehre  vom  Abendmahl.     Leipzig,  1851. 

DiECKBOFF,  A.  W.:  Die  evangelische  AbendmaMslehre  im  Reformationszeilalter 
gcschichtlich   dargestellt.     Vol.  I.     Gottingen,  1854. 

MuLLER,  Julius  :  Vergieichung  der  Lehren  Luthers  und  Calvins  vom  heiligen 
Abendmahl,  in  Dogmatische  Abliandlungen ,  pp.  404fT.     Bremen,  1870. 

Krauth,  Charles  P.:  The  Conservative  Reformation  and  Its  Theology.  Phila- 
delphia,  1872. 

ScHMiD,  Heinbich:  Der  KampI  der  lutherischen  Kirche  uni  Luthers  Lehre  vom 
Abendmahl,  im  Rejormationszeitalter.     Leipzig,  1873. 

Van  Dyke,  Henry  J.:   Tlie  Presbyterian  Review,  1887,  pp.  193ff.,  472ff. 

Richard,  J.  W.:  Bihliotheca  Sacra,  October,  1887,  and  January,  1888. 


SCHWEXCKFELD'S   PARTICIPATION   IN   THE 

EUCHARISTIC  C0NTE0VER8Y  OF  THE 

SIXTEENTH   CENTURY. 

rriHE  eucharistic  controversies  of  the  Reformation,  like  the 
Jl  related  Cliiistological  controversies  of  the  ancient  Church, 
present,  on  the  whole,  a  disheartening  picture;  one  in  which  the 
harsh  uncharitableness,  not  to  say  the  violent  hatred,  among 
brethren  professing  devotion  to  a  common  Lord  is  too  seldom 
relieved  by  examples  of  heroic  fidelity  to  religious  convictions,  com- 
bined with  the  conciliatory  spirit  of  Christian  love.  In  each  case 
the  conflict  was  followed  by  momentous  and  in  part  disastrous 
consequences  in  the  spheres  both  of  constructive  theologizing  and 
of  ecclesiastical  and  political  life.  In  each  case,  however,  the  issues 
involved  must  be  said,  when  their  full  significance  is  realized,  to 
have  been  worth  the  arduous  attempt  made  to  settle  them. 

The  Lord's  Supper  had,  of  course,  been  an  important  subject  of 
controversy  in  the  Middle  Ages.*  But  it  was  reserved  for  the 
evangelical  spirit  of  the  sixteenth  century  not  only  to  undermine 
the  dogma  of  transubstantiation  sanctioned  by  the  Fourth  Lateran 
Council  of  1215,  but  also  to  bring  uito  clearer  prominence  many  a 
hitherto  neglected  factor  of  the  problem  concerning  the  sacra- 
mental feast.  The  issue  was  far  from  being  merely  liturgical. f 
The  contest  was  so  long  and  bitter  just  because  it  was  rightly 
understood  that  the  most  precious  treasures  of  the  rediscovered 

*  Loofs,  however,  in  his  article,  "Abendmabl,"  in  Haucl^'s  Realcnchjhlopadie, 
I,  p.  65,  is  unduly  anxious  to  maintain  that,  barring  Carlstadt's  tlieory,  tlie  "posi- 
tive thoughts  of  tlic  Reformation  period"  concerning  the  eucliarist  are  "not 
new."  The  context,  to  be  sure,  restricts  this  generalization  to  more  moderate 
bounds.  Certainly  so  far  as  Schwenckfeld,  for  example,  is  concerned,  Loofs' 
statement  can  be  applied  only  to  the  finally  accepted  sj'rabolic  doctrines  of  the 
Supper.  Cf.  Goetz,  Die  Ahendmaldsjragc  in  ihrcr  geschichtlichcn  Entwicklung, 
p.  75,  n.2. 

t  It  is  interesting  to  observe,  however,  as  Harnack  reminds  us  (Dogmcngc- 
schichtc,llV,  pp.  74G,  762),  that  it  is  possible  in  a  sense  to  construe  Luther's  whole 
reformation  as  a  "reformation  of  the  public  worship."  Rome  had  made  the 
mass  the  very  centre  of  her  church  service,  and  the  work  of  the  reformers  in  its 
negative  but  at  the  same  time  its  most  direct  bearings  was  an  attack  in  the 
name  of  subjective  religion  upon  the  citadel  of  the  Romish  liturgy. 


Gospel  were  at  stake.  The  mere  statement  of  the  controverted 
points  led  thmking  men  to  connect  their  views  of  the  Supper  with 
the  deepest  verities  of  their  faith.  It  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
therefoi'e,  that  sooner  or  later  nearly  every  dogmatic  problem  of  the 
day  would  be  related  to  the  question  which,  above  all  others,  was 
beginnhig  to  divide  the  Protestants. 

In  ascertaining  the  nature  and  value  of  the  contribution  made 
by  anj'  one  of  the  reformers  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  it 
is  necessary,  therefore,  to  consider  his  views  both  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  fmidamental  principles  of  his  system  of  thought  and 
in  the  light  of  his  historical  surromidings.  For  to  none  of  the  con- 
testants did  the  eucharistic  question  appear  as  an  end  in  itself,  nor 
could  any  one  of  them  attempt  the  solution  of  the  problem  without 
coming  into  conflict  with  various  classes  of  opponents. 

To  these  considerations  special  weight  ought  to  be  given  in  the 
case  of  Caspar  Schwenckfeld.*  For  on  the  one  hand  he  belongs 
to  that  class  of  theological  writers  who  have  had  the  mis- 
fortmie  of  being  seriously  misunderstood  because  persistently 
branded  as  "  mystics,  "f  It  is  of  course  to  be  admitted  that  his 
religious  life  revealed  itself  more  in  the  language  of  strong  and  deep 
feeling  than  in  any  clearly  articulated  system  of  dialectics.  It  is 
likewise  true,  as  Dorner|  reminds  us,  that  it  must  have  been  ea.sy 
for  his  contemporaries  to  rej^resent  his  ideas  as  "only  a  perverse 
lot  of  the  most  wondrous  idios3Ticrasies. "  Moreover,  he  shows 
many  points  of  contact  and  signs  of  kinship  with  some  of  the 
extreme  spiritualistic  fanatics.  But  for  this  very  reason  it  is 
necessary  to  cast  aside  all  prejudices  and  to  lay  hold  of  the  inner 
connections,  if  such  can  be  found,  among  these  alleged  fantastic 

*  The  spelling  of  the  name  is  bj'  no  means  uniform.  Kriebel,  The  Schivenkfcld- 
ers  in  Pemisylvania,  p.  1,  n.  1,  cites  thirteen  variations,  and  others  might  be 
added.  Schneider  gives  some  valid  reasons  in  favor  of  the  consonantal  com- 
bination ck  and  a  final  d  instead  of  dt  or  only  t.  See  his  tract,  Uehcr  den  geschicht- 
lichoi  Vcrlauf  dcr  Kejormation  in  Licgnitz,  etc.,  Abt.  1,  p.  27,  n.  10. 

t  Tliat  the  cpitliet  in  some  sense  ma_v  properly  be  applied  to  Schwenckfeld  it 
■would  be  idle  to  denj'.  But  ■what  after  all  is  mysticism?  Inge,  in  his  Bampton 
Lectures  (1899)  on  Christian  lihjsticism,  ventures  the  assertion  (p.  1):  "No  word 
in  our  language — not  even  'Socialism' — has  been  employed  more  loosely  than 
'Mysticism,'  "  and  in  the  Appendix  he  cites  and  criticises  some  twenty-six  at- 
tempts by  men  of  all  schools  of  thouglit  to  define  tlie  term.  AVith  what  propriety 
we  maj'  speak  of  Scliwenckfeld  as  a  mystic  will,  we  liope,  become  thorouglily 
clear  as  we  proceed.  For  the  present  it  may  be  most  advantageous  to  content 
ourselves  with  the  statement  that  tlie  v.ord  may  as  a  matter  of  fact  have  a  good 
as  well  as  a  bad  sense. 

t  Lchre  ron  dcr  Person  Chrisli,  p.  G24. 


and  heterogeneous  elements.  Great  credit  is  here  due  to  Erbkam,* 
■whose  treatment  of  Schwenckfeld  is  still,  on  the  whole,  the  best; 
and  to  Baur,t  who  with  his  usual  critical  acumen  saw  the  possibility 
and  the  need  of  doing  Schwenckfeld  a  needed  service  by  bringing 
out  more  clearly  the  hidden  speculative  elements  of  his  system. J 
These  and  other  writers  have  accustomed  students  of  Schwenckfeld 
to  the  double  conviction,  not  onh'  that  his  views  have  a  coher- 
ence that  makes  them  worthy  of  investigation,  but  that  of  all  the 
dissenting  thinkers  of  the  German  Reformation  he  is  the  most 
systematic.  §  T\'hatever  estimate  we  may  form  of  his ' '  mysticism, ' ' 
we  shall  expect  to  discover  in  him  at  least  somewhat  more  of  logic 
and  speculative  strength  than  the  traditional  prejudices  permitted 
some  of  the  earlier  historical  ^Titers  to  fi:rd.|| 

Not  only,  however,  does  the  alleged  mystical  character  of 
Schwenckfeld's  theologizing  necessitate  our  bringing  his  doctrine  of 
the  Supper  into  the  closest  possible  relation  to  his  whole  system,  but 
it  is  likewise  more  than  ordinarily  important,  on  the  other  hand, 

*  Gc.^chiclite  der  protcstantischen  Sehten,  pp.  357-475. 

t  Die  chrislliche  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung  in  ihrer  gescJilchllichen  Entwicklung 
(1S3S);  Die  chrisll.  Lehre  von  der  Dreieinigkeit,  etc.  (1S43);  Zur  Geschichte  der 
prot.  Myslik,  in  Theol.  Jahrbiicher  (1S4S).' 

X  Baur  of  course  had  no  intention  of  converting  SchTvenckfeld  the  m)'stic  into 
Schwenckfeld  the  rationalist,  but  the  transformation,  easy  enough  in  itself  and 
doubtless  most  congenial  to  a  mind  like  Baur's,  niaj'  be  said,  in  spite  of  the  reten- 
tion of  the  word  "m3-sticiEm,"  to  have  been  fairly  accomplished.  After  all  it 
is  only  a  matter  of  taking  Schwenckfeld's  temperature  at  difTcrent  times,  now 
catching  him  in  the  warnitli  of  a  fervent  piety  and  now  finding  him  on  the  chilly 
lieights  of  some  abstract  speculation.  But  though  Baur  {Thcologische  Jahr- 
biicher, 1S4S,  p.  527)  professes  to  be  able  to  distinguish  the  "speculative  content 
of  the  ideas  from  the  peculiar  form  in  which  thej^  have  found  expression,"  he 
can  scarcely  be  acquitted  of  the  charge  of  reading  into  Schwenckfeld  some  of  his 
own  ideas  as  to  how  the  reformer  might  have  avoided  apparent  or  real  contradic- 
tions. Domer  {I.e.,  p.  625)  gives  a  truer  judgment:  "Docli  kaun  auch  nicht 
bchauptet  werden,  dass  er  sich  stets  gleich  blieb  oder  dass  nicht  unlosbare  Wider- 
spriiche  in  seinem  Sj'stem  liegen." 

§  Comp.  Ficker,  Ilandschrijlcn  des  secJizchlen  Jahrhunderts,  ICleine  Ausgabe, 
Tafel  27,  p.  75:  "Er  ist  untcr  den  religiosen  Subjectivisten  der  Systematiker: 
sein  mystischer  Spiritualismus  ist  mit  eincm  dogmatischen  System  verbunden, 
welches  seine  Ueber2eugungen  geschlossener  wirken  lasst. " 

II  See,  e.g.,  Planck's  capricious  statement  (Geschichte  der  Etitslehung.  . .  .unseres 
protcstantischen  Lehrhcgriffs,  Vol.  V,  Th.  1,  p.  184):  "Dicss  war  wenigstens  im 
Ganzen  die  Wendung,  welclie  die  Ideen  Scliwenkfelds  genommcn,  oder  diess  war 
ungefahr  die  Form,  in  wclchcr  sich  seine  Phautasie  aUes,  wa.s  dabci  fiir  die  Ver- 
nunft  undenkbar  war,  deiikb.ir  gemacht  hattc.  Es  ist  Icicht  nioglidi,  dass  sie 
sicli  zu  Zeiten  in  seinem  Kopf  auf  eine  etwas  verschicdene  Art  zusammenfugten, 
denn  Vorstellungen,  die  keinen  vcrniinftigen  Zusammcnhang  zulassen,  sind  der 
manr.i^r?.lti2sten  Ziisammons'.'tzung  fahig." 


to  interpret  such  A-iews  as  his  in  the  light  of  the  historical  situation 
in  which  he  found  himself.  This  is  so  not  only  because  of  the  un- 
usually extensive  connections  ^^•hich  he  had  with  the  most  diverse 
parties  in  the  Church,*  but  more  particularly  because  every  mystical 
movement  in  history  is  necessarily  colored  bj'  the  specific  forms  of 
religious  deadness  against  which  it  rises  to  utter  its  protest. 

Fortunately  Schwenckfeld  informs  us  with  admirable  fullness 
concerning  his  relations  to  his  contemporaries. f  Born  about  1490,t 
of  an  ancient  and  aristocratic  family  in  Ossig,  near  Liiben,  in 
Silesia,  reared  a  strict  Catholic,  educated  at  Liegnitz,  Cologne, 
Frankfort-on-the-Oder,  and  at  other  but  unknown  institutions, 
serving  about  twelve  years  at  the  courts  of  several  Silesian  princes, 
this  deeply  religious  young  nobleman  became  one  of  the  first  in 
that  section  of  Germany  to  embrace  the  evangelical  cause.  §  Com- 
pelled in  1521  by  reason  of  an  affection  of  the  ear  to  return  to 
private  life,  he  became  a  diligent  student  of  the  Scriptures.il  He 
kept  in  touch  with  the  leaders  of  the  new  movement,  making  several 
trips  to  "Wittenberg  and  exchanging  letters  with  Luther  himself. 
Devoted  heart  and  soul  to  the  task  of  establishing  the  Reformation 
in  Silesia,  he  secured  m  1523  the  able  cooperation  of  a  former  notary 
and  canon,  Valentine  Ivrautwald. 

But  irreconcilable  difTerences  soon  arose  between  Schwenckfeld 
and  the  Wittenbergers,  resulting  in  1527  in  a  complete  and  irre- 

*  In  tliis  fact  lies  the  chief  justification  for  Keller's  assertion  (Die  Rejormation 
vnd  die  ultereti  Rcjorttiparleicti,  p.  463):  "Es  ■ware  von  der  hochsten  Wichtigkeit, 
die  umfangreiclie  und  interessante  Correspondenz  Schwenkfelds  ans  Licht  zu 
Ziehen;  man  wurde  iiberrascliende  Rcsultate  daraus  gewinnen." 

t  But  his  works  present  only  meagre  details  as  to  liis  early  life.  Hoffmann's 
account,  Caspar  Schivenckjelcls  Leben  und  Lehren,  I,  extending  to  only  1524  and 
constituting  the  first  of  six  parts  of  wliat  may  become  an  adequate  biography, 
draws  largely  from  other  important  sources.  Keim  and  Gerbert  present  the 
leading  facts  concerning  Sdivenckfeld's  career  in  southern  Germany.  Ham)  e, 
Zvr  Bicgraphie  Kaspars  ran  Schucnchfeld,  18S2,  is  minute  but  brief,  extending 
to  1539.  Arnold,  Salig,  Planck,  DoUinger,  Erbkam,  etc.,  give  only  the  salient 
biograpliical  data. 

J  Neither  the  date  of  his  birth  (14S9  or  1490)  nor  tliat  of  his  death  (15G1  or 
1562)  has  as  yet  been  fixed. 

§  The  exact  date  of  his  conversion  cannot  be  fixed.  Hoffmann,  p.  10,  is  inclined 
to  put  it  a.s  early  as  1517;  MoUer  is  at  least  safe  in  declaring  that  by  1519 
Schwenckfeld  liad  been  won  to  the  Lutheran  cause  (Kirchoigesckichle,  III,  p.  444). 

II  Greek  and  Hebrew  he  seems  to  have  acquired  considerably  later,  certainly 
not  before  1528.  Cf.  Erbkam,  I.e.,  p.  363,  n.  1.  Rase  is  clearly  in  error,  how- 
ever, when  he  delares  {Kirchcngcschichle,  III,  1,  p.  300):  "Noch  in  seinem  64. 
Jahre  lernte  er  Griechisch,  um  mit  eigenen  Augen  zuzusehen,  was  Christus 
geredet  habe."  Letters  and  treatises  written  long  before  this  evince  a  consider- 
able knowledge  of  tlie  Greek  Testament  and  the  Fathers. 


mediabic  rupture.  It  is  therefore  worth  while  ascertaining,  at  the 
very  outset,  the  logic  of  this  event,  the  real  turning-point  m  his 
career  as  a  reformer. 

He  had  prided  himself  upon  being  an  ardent  disciple  of  Luther,* 
and  though  from  the  beginning  he  could  not  entire!}^  agree  with 
him,t  he  never  forgot  the  incalculable  service  the  great  reformer 
had  rendered  to  the  cause  of  religion. J  The  force  of  sacred 
convictions,  liowever,  proved  stronger  than  this  sense  of  grati- 
tude, deepened  though  it  was  by  a  peculiar  reverence  for  his 
spiritual  father.  Schwenckfeld  perceived  that  his  whole  concep- 
tion of  Cluistianity  differed  so  radically  from  Luther's  that  there 
"was  no  possibility  of  a  substantial  agreement. §  The  common 
representation,  not  sufficiently  modified  even  by  Erbkam  and  Halui, 
that  the  divergencies  of  opinion  related  primarilj' and  chiefly  to  the 
eucharistic  controversy  opened  by  Carlstadt  m  152-4  fails,  as  Baur 
has  pointed  out,||  to  look  at  the  facts  from  the  right  angle.     The 

*  C  300d  (anno  1531):  "Ich  babe  niich  der  Lutherischen  Lehre  erkundet  und 
seines  Evangelii  gebraucht  mit  moglichem  Fleiss  acht  Jahre."  Cf.  C.  574c: 
"Denn  ich  habe,  ohne  Ruhm  zu  reden,  in  Doctor  Luthers  Buchern  wohl  so  viel 
als  Ilir  sfudiert  und  (wollt  mir's  verzeihen)  viellcicht  ehe  Ihr  das  a ,  fc ,  c  gelernt  viel 
seiner  Scliriften  mit  moglichem  Fleiss  hinten  und  vorn  gelesen,  audi  mit  Gebet 
nach  der  Regel  Pauli  omnia  probate  fleissig  erforscht  und  bewiiret." 

t  B  193b:  "dass  ich  mit  ihrem  Evangelio  nicht  stimme,  auch  von  Anfang  nie 
ganzHch  gestimmt  habe." 

%  Nothing  more  beautifully  reveals  Sch-n-enclcfeld's  nobilitj-  of  character  than 
the  oft-repeated  expressions  of  his  grateful  appreciation  of  Luther's  world- 
historical  importance,  even  after  the  latter  had  coined  the  \'ulgar  nickname 
'Stenkfeld"  and  in  other  ways  outdone  himself  in  vituperative  abuse.  See 
especially  C  499  sq.,  599d,  D  4,  5,  6,  520,  and  C  701d,  where  he  informs  Luther 
under  date  of  October  12,  1543:  "Denn  ob  ich  wohl  nicht  in  alien  Puncten  euch 
kann  unterschreiben,  noch  mit  euch  stimmen,  so  erkenne  ich  doch,  dass  icli  euch 
nach  Gott  und  der  W'ahrheit  aUe  Ehrc,  Liebe,  und  Gijte  schuldig  well  ich  eures 
Dienstes  anfiinglich  mitgenossen,  so  wohl  als  ich  Gott  den  Herrn  fur  euch  nach 
meinem  armen  Vermogen  zu  bitten  noch  nicht  habe  unterlassen."  Cf.  C  745b 
690d. 

§  The  influence  on  Schwenckfeld  of  the  mystical  Tauler  and  the  German  The- 
ology only  widened  the  gulf.  Schwenckfeld  (C  596a)  speaks  ■nith  admiration, 
though  not  ■n-ith  unconditional  approval,  of  his  teaclier  Tauler.  The  fact  is  that 
Schwenckfeld  forsook  Luther  for  Tauler,  whereas  Luther,  in  opposition  to  the 
fanatical  excesses  of  some  of  the  spiritualists,  felt  it  necessary  more  and  more  to 
recede  from  Tauler  and  to  check  the  subjective  tendencies  he  had  himself  cham- 
pioned in  the  opening  days  of  the  Reformation.  Even  before  the  disturbances 
at  Wittenberg,  however,  Luther's  mysticism  began  to  decline.  It  must  be  said 
to  have  reached  its  summit  as  early  as  151S  or  1519.  Cf.  Hering,  Die  Mystik 
Lvlhers,  etc.,  p.  292  aq. 

|i  Thcol.  Jahrb.,  184S,  pp.  504-506;  cf.  also  his  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung,  p.  462. 
For  whatever  fault  may  be  found  with  Baur's  one-sided  empha.sis  on  the  specu- 
lative elements  in  Schwenckfeld  at  the  expense  of  the  strictly  practical,  that  is 


causes  of  the  break  mu?t  be  distinguished  from  its  mere  occasion. 
Prior  to  all  questions  about  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  presence  in 
the  sacramental  ordinance  or  about  the  constitution  of  his  person 
is  the  consideration  of  his  very  purpose  or  mission  in  the  world. 
Nothing  less  than  the  whole  problem  of  the  nature  of  salvation — 
the  question  how  tlie  smful  soul  may  be  reunited  with  God — ^was 
Schwenckfeld's  basal  concern.  He  could  not  accept  Luther's 
explanation  of  the  Supper,  but  this  inability  was  only  indicative  of, 
and  conditioned  by,  his  inability  to  accept  without  safeguarding 
modifications  the  doctrine  which  his  chief  opponent  came  to  regard 
as  the  article  of  a  standmg  or  falling  Church,  justification  by  faith 
alone.  Implied  in  this,  as  we  shall  see,  was  a  generically  different 
view  as  to  the  Word,  the  Sacraments,  and  the  Church,  and  like- 
wise as  to  the  nature  of  the  process  of  salvation  itself. 

Schwenclcfeld,  we  repeat,  was  governed  at  the  outset  by  thor- 
ouglily  practical  considerations.  He  wanted  the  new  presentation  of 
the  Gosi)e]  to  bring  forth,  in  the  lives  of  his  fellow-men,  an  abundant 
fruit  unto  holiness.  He  was  deeply  gi-ieved  bysome  of  those  epigram- 
matic but  easily  mismiderstood  half-truths  with  which  Luther  so 
often  sought  to  help  his  owii  and  his  partisans'  faith.  He  feared, 
and  his  experience  more  and  more  justified  his  fears,  that  Luther's 
gospel  was  becoming  popular  at  the  expense,  to  some  extent,  of 
sound  morality.*  He  deplored  the  lack  of  good  works,  the  absence 
of  strict  discipline,  the  interference  of  the  avaricious  princes  in  the 
affairs  of  the  Church,  and  the  manifestly  false  security  of  many  pro- 
fessed Clu'istians  the  chief  article  of  whose  creed  was  that  their 
organization  was  the  only  one  worthy  of  comparison  with  that  of 
the  Apostles.  The  Lutherans  are  often  characterized,  along  with 
the  Romanists,  as  Antichrist,  because,  according  to  him,  the}'  have 
no  spiiitual  discernment,  but  mistake  the  letter  for  the  spirit,  a 
historical  for  a  vital  faith  in  Christ.f 

of  the  religious  and  moral  as  distinguished  from  the  theological  or  philosophic 
interests  that  dominated  the  reformer,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  main 
his  strictures  upon  Hahn  and  Erbkam  are  borne  out  by  the  facts. 

*  This  does  not  mean,  as  the  charge  so  often  but  falsely  brought  against 
Luther's  gospel  maintains,  that  he  furnished  no  adequate  basis  or  motive  for 
ethical  conduct.  On  the  contrary,  no  one  of  the  reformers  better  understood 
either  the  need  or  the  method  of  supplj-ing  morality  -n-ith  the  motive  power  of  a 
deep  rehgious  faith.  But  his  words  not  seldom  seemed  to  mock  his  principles, 
and  unfortunatelj-  his  devoted  foUowers  were  apt  to  swear  by  the  caricature  of 
their  leader  rather  than  by  his  real  self.  Cf.  Harnack,  Llogmeiigcscliichlc,  IIP, 
p.  7S4,  n.  1,  and  Seeberg,  Dogtncngcscldchte,  II,  p.  244,  n.  1. 

t  This  charge  has  of  course  ever  been  a  familiar  expedient  in  the  hands  of  spir- 


Tlie  real  natiu-e  and  extent  of  the  differences  will  become  more 
apparent  as  we  proceed.  Enough  has  been  said  to  give  point  to 
the  present  contention  that  the  divergencies  on  the  eucharistic 
question  were  after  all  only  sj'uiptomatic  of  those  deeper  differences 
that  concerned  the  very  essence  of  the  faith.* 

Unable  as  Schwenckfeld  was  to  identify  himself  with  the  Luth- 
eran movement,  he  had  become  too  thorough  a  Protestant  to  find 
it  possible  to  reenter  the  Roman  Church.  He  is  well  aware,  indeed, 
that  his  works  were  at  times  better  received  by  the  Romanists 
than  by  the  Lutherans,!  and  in  152S  he  even  declares  that  if  only 
he  could  have  freedom  of  conscience  he  M-ould  rather  join  the  former 
than  the  latter. |  But  the  logic  of  his  situation  kept  him  true  to 
Protestantism.  He  rejected  the  hierarchy,  the  priesthood,  the 
mass,  the  confessional,  and  the  ceremonialism  of  the  Romish 
Church,  as  well  as  all  her  dogmas  that  clashed  with  his  distinctive 
peculiarities.  If  the  Lutherans  made  too  much  of  the  letter  of 
Scripture  to  the  neglect  of  its  spirit,  the  Romanists  made  too  much 
of  meritorious  works  to  the  disparagement  of  genuine  faith.  Rome 
gave  too  much  scope  to  the  mere  traditions  of  men.  In  fine,  he 
was  bomid  as  a  real  Protestant  to  oppose  Roman  Catholicism. 

Between  Romanism  and  Lutheranism  Schwenckfeld  sought  to 
establish  the  "Reformation  of  the  Middle  Way."  He  declares: 
"There  are  now  in  general  two  leading  parties  that  misuse  the 
Gospel  of  Christ,  inasmuch  as  the  one  departs  in  many  particulars 

itualistic  heretics.  For  a  -well-selected  list  of  passages  from  Schwenckf eld's  works 
concerning  the  undeniable  ethical  deficiences  of  the  German  Reformation,  see 
Dijllinger,  Die  Rejormation,  I,  pp.  257-280.  Tlie  testimony  of  other  T\Titers, 
there  given,  shows  b)-  contrast  Schwenekfeld's  fairness  and  moderation  Luther 
himself  -was  as  severe  as  any  of  the  other  censors  (p.  295  sgrj.). 

*  See,  e.g.,  the  Erklcirung  etUchcr  slrcitiger  Artikcl  beim  Missbrauch  des  Erangeliit 
etc.,  in  D  375  sqq.,  where  no  one  of  the  five  "abused"  articles  explicitly  refers 
to  the  eucharist.  Cf.  also  C,  pp.  1009-1012,  where  in  parallel  columns  Schwenck- 
feld compares  and  contrasts  twelve  cardinal  articles  of  his  faith  with  those  of  the 
Lutherans,  only  two  of  the  points  dealing  directly  with  the  Supper  and  a 
third  indirectly.  The  high  Lutheran  Kurtz  {Kirchengcschichte,  9.  Aufl.,  2.  B., 
p.  150)  therefore  fails  to  do  justice  to  Schwenckfeld  when  he  declares:  "Was 
Schwenckfeld  an  der  luth.  Reformation  so  sehr  zuwidcr,  war  nichts  andcrs  als  ihre 
feste  biblisch-kirchliche  Objectivitiit."  Rather  was  it  primarily  the  externalism 
of  Lutlier's  movement  that  provoked  his  opposition  and  caused  his  deeply 
spiritual  nature  to  develop  a  radic;dly  different  conception  of  Christianity.  To 
be  sure,  Schwenckfeld  could  not  grasp  Luther  in  his  entirety,  nor  even  do  justice 
to  his  doctrine  of  justification.  On  the  other  hand,  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten 
that  Luther's  words  were  peculiarly  liable  to  misinterpretation. 

t  B  4C0ab. 

+  C645d. 


to  the  left,  and  the  other  to  the  right,  from  the  only  stiaight  and 
true  way  of  the  Lord.  The  first  party  is  that  of  the  papacy,  that 
despises  the  Gospel  of  Cliiist  with  his  savuig  ministry,  and  will  not 
perceive  the  salutary  gi-ace  of  God  that  has  been  manifested  nor 
the  clearer  light  of  revealed  truth,  but  abides  and  perseveres, 
in  doctrine  and  life,  in  its  old  errors."*  "The  other  party  con- 
sists of  those  whom  God  has  m  these  days  granted  a  gi-acious  light, 
in  which  they  to  a  certain  extent  perceive  what  is  right  and  Cliris- 
tian,  but  who  by  no  means  live  up  to  this  light,  although  they  wish 
to  be  regarded  as  evangelical;  mdeed,  they  make  the  Gospel  mm- 
ister  to  their  pride,  greed,  lust,  and  ambition,  to  theh-  crimes  and 
misdeeds,  to  serve  as  a  defense  for  their  sinful  living.  These, 
much  as  thej'  pretend  to  be  better  and  more  evangelical  than 
others,  are  rather  a  dishonor,  disgrace,  and  mockiug-stock  to  the 
evangelical  truth  and  name,  while  they  live  unevangelically,  without 
the  fear  of  God  and  without  regard  for  man,  in  spite  of  all  their 
praise  for  the  Gospel. "f 

In  manj'  important  respects,  however,  Schwenckfeld  must  be 
conceived  not  as  a  mediator  between  Romanism  and  Lutheranism, 
but  as  the  spokesman  of  a  moi-e  advanced  reform  movement.  He 
often  speaks  of  the  Anabaptists  as  a  third  party  in  the  Church  of  his 
day,  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  there  was  an  mner  kinship 
between  him  and  them.  He  was  m  immistakable  sympathy  with 
their  disciplinarj^  zeal.  He  had  come  mider  the  influence  of 
their  spiritualistic  individualism,  and  heartily  shared  their  ten- 
dency to  make  light  of  the  sacraments.  He  early  counseled  the 
abohtion  of  infant  baptism,  or  at  least  the  reduction  of  the  sacra- 
ment to  a  mere  "ecclesiastical  baptism,"  to  be  later  reinforced  by 
the  true  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  During  his  many  wanderings  in 
southern  Germany  he  preferred  to  labor  in  fields  that  had  been 
visited  by  Anabaptists.  So  closely  related,  in  fact,  are  the  sub- 
jective tendencies  of  Schwenckfeld  and  these  more  radical  leaders 
that  he  has  been  regarded  by  some  as  a  real  adherent  of  this  party.  J 

But  he  cannot  justly  be  classified  with  the. \nabaptists.  He  wanted 
toleration  for  them,§  but  this  was  only  hi  keeping  with  his  advanced 

*  D  35Gd. 

t  D  3G0a.  Cf.  .ilso  p.  710c,  on  tlic  right  mean  between  the  p.ii'acy  and  Luther- 
anism, and  C  G.'>od. 

J  Keller,  e.g.,  says:  "obwohl  die  ganzc  Welt  wusste,  dass  SchwcnLfeld  im 
Grunde  ein  Wiedertaufer  war."     See  Die  Rejormalion,  etc.,  p.  463. 

§  A  9S,  and  compare  the  Latin  letter  to  Bucer  publislied  by  Schneider,  Veher 
den  gescliiclillidien  \'erlaul  der  Rejormation  in  Licgniiz,  etc.,  Abt.  I,  Beilage  III, 
p.  37. 


ideas  concerning  the  freedom  of  conscience  in  matters  of  religion* 
He  did,  to  be  sure,  confess:  "The  Anabaptists  are  for  this  reason 
more  to  my  liking,  because  they  concern  themselves  somewhat 
more  than  many  of  the  learned  for  the  divine  truth,  "f  But  he 
declares  explicitly  that  he  is  no  adherent  of  this  sect,t  and  that  he 
will  never  become  one.§  It  is  a  fact,  moreover,  that  the  Ana- 
baptists themselves  rejected  his  views  and  persecuted  him.||  He, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  opposed  to  their  pitiable  legalism,  their 
ecclesiastical  externalism  and  exclusiveness,  and  their  lack  of 
"spiritual  knowledge. "1i 

Schwenckfeld  commonly  speaks,  in  the  last  place,  of  a  fourth 
Christian  Church  or  sect  of  his  day,  the  Zwinglians.  From  their 
mediating  position  between  the  Romanists  and  Lutherans  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  Anabaptists  on  the  other,  one  might  suppose  that 
the  persecuted  nobleman  would  have  found  some  waj'  of  coming  to 
terms  with  this  party.  But  here  too  the  differences  concerning 
the  eucharist  were  only  of  secondary  importance. 

At  fii'st,  to  be  sure,  the  mediators  of  southern  Germany,  especially 
Bucer,  Capito,  and  Zell  of  Strassburg,  cordially  received  him.**  In 
1524  CEcolampadius  of  Basel  even  ventured,  in  his  contest  with 
the  Wittenbergers,  to  publish,  without  the  author's  consent  or 
knowledge,  a  letter  of  Schwenckfeld's  that  contained  some  char- 
acteristic anti-Lutheran  views.  Zwingli  afterwards  did  the  same 
with  Schwenckfeld's  first  treatise — it  was  a  letter  to  some  Strassburg 
friends — on  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  however  much  the  Silesian 
might  have  in  common  with  the  Swiss  as  against  Luther,  there  was 
no  possibility  of  agreeing  in  anj'  positive  view  of  the  eucharist. 
Schwenckfeld,  moreover,  took  as  much  offense  at  Zwingli's  as  at 
Luther's  doctrine  of  predestination. ft     In  fact  the  antagonisms 

*  See,  e.g.,  A  7S  sg.,  869  sq.,  874  sgq.  It  is  in  view  of  such  strong  assertions  tliat 
Dr.  Hartranft,  Prospectus  concerning  titc  Corpus  Scliwcnckjeldianorum,  18S4, 
speaks  of  Scliwenckfeld  as  the  man  "wlio  of  all  the  leaders  of  the  Reformation 
penetrated  furtherst  into  tlie  spirit  of  religious  lilierty,  who  asserted  its  prin- 
ciples -with  unequivocal  faithfulness  and  unflinching  courage." 

t  C  307b. 

t  Cf.  D  375,  16a,  A  490a. 

§  B  155c. 

II  C  1012  and  D  371  sqq. 

^  A  513,  801-SOS. 

**  Gerberf,  Gcfcldclite  dcr  Strasdjurgcr  Scctcnheiccgung zur Zeil  dcr  Rejormation, 
1SS9,  is  especially  to  be  consulted  on  Schwenckfeld's  relations  to  these  men.  See 
p.  135  for  Capito's  favorable  judgment  of  the  Silesian  as  late  as  1534. 

tt  He  called  it  &  dogma  Plaloninm  and  a  jatum  Stoicum;  D  41Sab,  cf.  407a, 
415  57. 


10 

here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Romanists,  Lutherans,  and  Anabaptists 
involved  the  basal  elements  of  the  Christian  faith.* 

In  no  one  of  the  four  chief  branches  of  the  divided  Church, 
therefore,  could  Schwenckfeld  feel  at  home.  "Why  should  any 
cue  be  sui-prised,"  he  mquires,  "if  I  or  any  other  simple-minded 
man  should  now  concern  himself  about  the  Clii-istian  Church  and 
try  to  find  where  it  is,  inasmuch  as  among  the  four  leading  Churches 
one  openly  condenms  the  others?  The  papal  Church  condenms 
the  Lutheran,  the  Lutheran  condemns  the  Zwmglian,  the  Zwinglian 
persecutes  the  Anabaptists,  and  the  Anabaptists  condemn  all 
others.  But  inasmuch  as  Christ  is  not  divided,  and  his  Spu-it  is  a 
spirit  of  concord  and  not  of  dissension,  he  cannot,  it  is  manifest, 
be  ruling  in  all  at  the  same  time."t  It  would  be  doing  Schwenck- 
feld  a  gi-ave  injustice,  therefore,  to  attribute  to  him  any  vain  desire 
to  fomid  a  new  sect. J  He  repeatedly  avers  that  he  has  no  pleasure 
in  being  regarded  as  the  head  of  the  "Schwenckf elders."  It  was 
loj'alty  to  his  convictions,  as  he  understood  the  truths  of  revelation, 
that  compelled  him  to  maintain  this  four-cornered  contest.  At- 
tacked and  persecuted  by  all  the  great  parties,  he  defended  him- 
self b}'  means  of  an  astonishing  literary  activity.  Havmg  left 
Silesia  late  in  1528  or  early  in  1529,  m  order  not  to  be  a  source  of 
trouble  to  his  friend  and  patron,  the  Duke  of  Liegnitz,  he  spent  the 
rest  of  his  life  m  southern  Germany,  roaming  from  city  to  city, 
gathering  his  followers  m  quiet  conventicles,  answermg  the  many 
letters  of  mquiry  addressed  to  him,  gaining  special  influence  among 
the  nobles  and  the  lowly,  and  inspu^ing  all  with  his  O'wn  spirit  of 
toleration,  courage,  and  smcerity. 

Such,  in  broad  outline,  is  the  historical  situation  in  which 
Schwenckfeld  developed  and  sought  to  popularize  his  peculiar  con- 
ception of  the  rediscovered  Gospel.  I'nable  to  identify  himself  w-ith 
any  of  the  leading  movements  of  religious  thought,  he  was  never- 
theless deeply  influenced  by  them  all.  His  spiritualistic  tendencies 
were  everj'where  colored,  as  was  inevitable,  by  the  theological 
formulas  of  the  age.  His  characteristic  opinions  are  the  product 
of  his  peculiar  "mj'sticism,"  influenced  by  the  types  of  thought  m 

*  Schwenckfeld  seldom  names  Calvin,  and  doubtless  he  knew  little  of  his  dis- 
tinctive doctrines.  Their  views  in  many  particulars,  as  we  shall  have  occasion 
to  observe,  present  striking  resemblances.  But  the  presuppositions,  it  is  need- 
less to  add,  are  irreconcilably  different. 

t  A  95cd. 

J  C571b. 


11 

the  four  chief  branches  of  the  Church  as  kiiow^i  to  hhii,  Romanism, 
Lutheranism,  Zwmghanism,  and  Anabaptism. 

It  is  our  purpose,  therefore,  to  examine  his  views  from  the  pre- 
cise angle  from  which  this  historical  situation  constant!}'  comjwlled 
him  to  set  them  forth,  from  the  standjioint  of  the  eucharistic  con- 
troversy. 

It  will  be  most  advantageous  to  begin  with  Schwenckfeld's  con- 
ception of  the  sacraments  in  general.  This  will  introduce  us  to 
the  presuppositions  of  his  whole  sj'stem  of  thought,  and  enable  us 
to  estimate  aright  his  positive  contribution  to  the  many-sided  dis- 
cussion of  the  Supper. 

Our  author's  language  concerning  the  nature  of  the  sacraments 
is  not  devoid  of  that  carelessness  as  to  terminology  which  renders 
so  many  of  his  statements  difficult  of  interpretation.  At  first 
sight,  indeed,  it  might  appear  that,  at  least  so  far  as  "the  means  of 
grace"  are  concerned,  there  is  little  room  for  doubt  as  to  his  precise 
meaning.  The  many  misrepresentations  of  his  views,  however, 
clearly  prove  that  the  matter  is  not  so  simple  as  a  casual  reading 
might  lead  one  to  suppose.  Occasional  utterances,  taken  apart 
from  their  context,  have  been  made  to  support  the  extreme  asser- 
tion that  he  deprived  the  sacraments  of  all  objective  content, 
efficacy,  and  worth  whatsoever.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are 
statements  which  would  not  be  out  of  place  in  any  fah-  exposition 
of  the  Reformed  or  even  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  means  of 
grace.  Manifestly  we  must,  if  possible,  find  a  logical  mean  between 
such  apparently  contradictory  views. 

In  the  first  place,  therefore,  full  justice  must  be  done  to  Schwenck- 
feld's imequivocal  opposition  to  the  term  Gnadenmittcl.  Only  a 
few  of  the  numberless  passages  can  be  cited.  "In  fuie,  the  doc- 
trine of  means  is  an  old  sophistical  doctrine,  by  which  the  hearts 
are  turned  away  from  Christ  m  heaven  down  toward  the  creatures,* 
in  order  there  to  find  grace. "f  "We  on  the  contrary  affirm  that 
all  who  seek  salvation  through  creaturely  means  or  external  things, 
no  matter  what  they  may  be  called,  and  not  exclusively  through  the 
sole  mediator,  the  man  Jesus  Christ,  are  false  teachers  and  lead 
away  from  Christ,  who  is  the  only  way,  the  door,  means  and  media- 
tor, through  whom  we  draw  nigh  mito  God.  "J  "Clu-ist  will  give 
us  himself  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  through  bodily  means  or 

*  For  Schwenckfeld's  peculiar  idea  of  creaturehood,  see  pp.  36  sqq. 
t  C4S6d,  4S7. 
i  C  507c. 


12 

men,  but  through  himself,  in  order  that  we  by  daily  eating  in  faitl 
his  flesh  and  blood  may  have  fellowship  with  him  and  become  par 
takers  of  hi?  nature  and  essence."*  "God  must  himself,  apart 
from  all  external  means,  tlu-ough  Christ  move  the  soul,  speak  tc 
it,  work  in  it,  if  we  are  to  have  any  experience  of  salvation  and 
eternal  life,  "f  "  Just  as  the  Head  is  the  Saviour  of  the  whole  body, 
so  he  [i.e.,  any  reader  of  Ephesians  5]  will  soon  find  that  here  no 
bodily,  external  means  or  instrument  can  intervene  as  little  as 
between  the  vine  and  its  branches. "J  Again,  we  are  told  "that 
the  Eternal  and  Almighty  God,  whom  nothmg  can  resist,  does  not 
work  through  means  or  instruments  like  a  cobbler  or  tailor,  but 
he  acts  freely  and  effects  our  salvation  through  himself,  in  Christ 
his  Son,  although  he  also  uses  the  service  of  the  creatures  to  the 
praise  of  his  grace  and  for  the  good  of  man;  but  he  is  not  bound 
thereto.  "§ 

Schwenckfeld's  application  of  these  basal  principles  to  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Supper  resulted,  as  is  well  known,  in  his  dispensing 
altogether  with  the  observance  of  this  ordinance.  The  fierce  dis- 
putes about  the  eucharist  that -prevailed  even  among  the  seven 
factions  of  the  Lutherans  themselves,  ||  and  in  general  the  attention, 
one-sided  and  excessive  as  he  thought,  that  was  paid  to  external 
rites,  led  the  reformer  to  counsel  his  followers  to  abstain,  for  the 
■time  being,  from  all  participation  in  this  act  of  worship.^ 

Schwenckfeld's  depreciatory  views  and  practice  concerning  the 
Supper  have  their  close  parallel,  as  might  be  expected,  in  his  teach- 
ings concerning  baptism.  We  have  already  seen  that  in  common 
with  the  Swiss  radicals  he  rejected  the  baptism  of  children.**  But 
«ven  in  the  case  of  adults  there  may  be  no  necessity,  either  of  means 
or  of  precept,  for  this  sacrament.  It  all  depends,  as  we  shall  find, 
upon  the  far-reaching  distinction  between  the  "inner"  and  the 
"outer"  transaction,  between  the  "baptism  by  the  Sphit"  and 
the  "bai)ti3m  by  water."     "Whether  Schwenckfeld's  view  of  this 

*  A  S6Sd. 

t  A  7GSb. 

t  A  86Gc. 

§  A  424c;  cf.  C  SGb,  482c,  486d,  507c,  532b,  997b,  1005b. 

i,  C  259d. 

«1  For  his  self-justification  in  this  so-called  SUllslan<],  see  such  passages  as  A 
736  sg.,  7C1,  B  225c,  C  274b,  ClOd,  S05a,  9S3a. 

**  C  2SS-293  gives  thirty  reasons  against  pedobaptism.  But]this  issue  was  not 
a  burning  one  for  him.  He  declares;  "Mir  ist  auch  fur  ineine  Person  gar  Niehts 
am  Ivindertauf  gelcgcn ;  man  taufe  oder  taufe  nicht,  so  lass  ich's  dabei  bleiben, 
■wollte  lieber  dass  dicser  Arlikel  noch  zur  Zeit  geschwiegcn  wurde"  (C  2S6d). 


13 

rite  is  a  "liigh"  or  a  "low"'  one  will  depend,  manifestly,  upon 
which  of  the  two  aspects  of  tlie  sacrament  he  has  in  mind.*  For 
the  present  it  may  suffice  to  say  that  the  above  statements  about 
the  utter  uselessness  of  external  means  of  grace,  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  term,  apply  as  much  to  the  one  sacrament  as  to  the 
other. 

Again,  Schwenckfeld's  theorj'  of  the  Church  is  Hkewise  influenced 
by  this  fundamental  dualism  between  the  inner  realities  of  religion 
and  their  external  signs.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  he  lacked  all 
interest  in  ecclesiastical  organizations.  The  fact  that  he  was  the 
real  founder  of  conventicles  among  the  dissenters  of  the  German 
Reformation  is  no  refutation  of  this  assertion.  His  followers  have, 
moreover,  maintained  their  independent  existence  to  this  day.  But 
these  facts  caimot  be  traced  to  any  teaching  of  his  as  to  the  need  or 
utility  of  a  corporate  church  hfe.  On  the  contrary,  as  Gerbert 
remarks:  " Schwenckfeld  lacked  every  tendency  toward  ecclesias- 
ticism;  in  fact,  he  entered  into  a  decided  opposition  to  the  Pro- 
testantism that  was  shapmg  itself  into  Churches. '  'f  His  spiritual- 
ism shared  in  this  respect  the  defects  of  all  genuine  mj-sticism:  the 
benefits  of  communal  life  for  the  individual  are  not  dulj-  appreci- 
ated. With  no  talent  for  administration  and  no  desire  for  the  sep- 
arate organization  of  his  adherents,  he  was  content,  for  the  sake 
cf  the  peace  of  Christendom,  to  work  cjuietl}'  on  a  small  scale,  and 
to  trust  to  the  power  of  his  teachings  for  the  defeat  of  his  better 
marshaled  foes.  With  his  opposition  to  all  external  ecclesiasticism, 
he  was  only  partially  successful  in  realizing  the  importance  of  the 
Church  as  a  factor  in  the  salvation  of  the  world.  + 

But  we  must  go  even  farther.  The  Scriptures  themselves  seem 
to  be  endangered.  The  Pauline  antithesis  between  the  letter  and 
the  spirit  is  applied  in  a  manner  which  at  least  gives  color  to  the 
charge  that  Schwenckfeld  rejected  the  normative  authority  of  the 

*  It  may  here  by  way  of  anticipation  be  admitted,  tliercfore,  that  Schwenck- 
feld in  his  use  of  tlie  term  "sacrament"  often  employs  an  undistributed  middle. 
He  professes  to  adopt  Augustin's  definition  (In  Joarui.,  SO  :  3) — "accedit  verbum 
ad  elcmentum  ct  fit  sacrametUum  etiam  ipsum  tanquam  verbum  visibile" — but  ere 
long  either  the  elemcntwn  or  the  verbum  is  spiritualized:  the  former  becomes  the 
Holy  Ghost  or  the  latter  the  Eternal  Word. 

t  L.c.p.  135;  of  p.  170. 

X  Meanwhile,  however,  his  admitted  partial  success  may  serve  to  remind  us 
that  his  subjectivism  was  not  of  that  e.xtrcme  kind  that  cut  itself  loose  absolutely 
from  the  historic  past.  Here  too,  in  other  words,  we  may  expect  to  find  a  more 
eatisfactory  aspect  of  his  doctrine  of  the  Church  than  that  commonly  ascribed  to 
him  and  necessitated,  it  would  seem,  by  some  of  his  own  statements. 


14 

Bible.  Certainly,  if  onh'  his  most  radical  assertions  were  considered, 
there  would  be  little  to  differentiate  him  from  the  most  fanatical 
of  the  extremists.  There  is  no  end  to  the  criticism  of  the  Buch- 
stabler  who,  in  mastering  only  tlie  letter  of  Scripture,  fail  to  discern 
its  real,  spu-itual  content.  Schriftgelchrte  and  Gottcsgelehrte  are 
generally  separated  by  precisely  the  whole  diameter  in  a  gi^'en 
sphere  of  speculation.  In  endless  variety  through  all  his  numerous 
works  rmis  this  polemic  against  the  alleged  deification  of  the  letter 
of  Scriptm-e  by  all  four  of  the  great  Chm-ch  parties.  The  external 
word  is  not  the  real  Word.  The  preached  Gospel  is  not  the  true 
Evangel,  the  genuine  Mj-sterium.  The  Scriptures  are  not  to  be 
identified  out  of  hand  with  the  Word  of  God.* 

It  is  plain  that  we  have  here  fallen  upon  a  fundamental  line  of 
thought  whose  ramifications  we  may  exjiect  to  encomiter  at  every 
step  of  our  progress.  We  have  in  fact  begun  to  lay  bare  the  very 
heart  of  Schwenckfeld's  gospel.  As  in  many  another  theological 
system,  so  also  in  his,  the  Word  and  sacraments  are  indissolubly  linked 
together.  To  ascertain  the  true  nature  of  his  theor)'  of  the  sacra- 
ments, therefore,  we  are  bound  to  examine  his  views  concerning 
the  Word  of  God.  But  the  identification  of  the  Word  with  the 
Son  at  once  raises  the  larger  question.  What  did  he  think  of  Christ? 

Schwenckfeld  reveals  himself  as  a  genuine  discijile  of  the  Reform- 
ation by  his  clear  gi-asp  of  the  central  importance  in  Cliristianity 
of  the  Redeemer's  person  and  work.f  As  some  of  the  passages 
already  cited  will  have  made  clear,  Christ  is  regarded  as  the  only  $ 

pos-ible  mediator  between  man  and  God. J     No  saints  can  share 

*  The  passages  on  these  points  are  Uterallj-  innuraera'ile.  They  disprove  the 
thesis  of  Loofs  {DognioigcscJiichie^,  p.  373)  about  the  "damals  nirgends  ange- 
fochtene  Gleichsetzung  von  IJ.  Sclirift  und  Wort  Gottes."  Cf.  Harnack,  Dog- 
mcng.,  IIP,  p.  791. 

t  There  -nas,  to  be  sure,  a  hitent  tendency  to  make  more  of  tlie  "per.~on" 
than  of  llic  "work,"  tliat  is,  to  perniit  the  objective  atonement  of  the  liisloric 
Jesus  unduly  to  recede  from  view  behind  tlie  incarnation  considered  as  the  great 
redemptive  fact.  This  w.is,  moreover,  a  logical  necessity  in  his  system.  At  the 
same  time  it  must  be  said  that  the  tendency  was  in  part  overcome  by  the  reformer's 
conscientious  study  of  the  Biblical  basis  of  justification  by  faitli.  It  is  an  inac- 
curate representation  of  the  case,  therefore,  when  Hodge  declares  (Systonatic 
Theology,  I,  p.  S3) :  ' ' He  said  that  we  are  justified  not  by  what  Clirist  has  done 
for  us,  but  by  what  He  has  done  within  vis. "  How  much  is  made  of  the  .Saviour's 
mission  in  his  estate  of  humiliation  will  be  sho'mi  later.  Meanwhile  it  is  to  be  con- 
ceded that  the  essence  of  Schwenckfeld's  Christ  ianitj-  is  to  be  found  in  his  altogether 
unique  doctrine  of  the  dcilication  of  Christ's  ficsh.  What  this  principle  logically 
implied  is  one  thing;  what  modificatiou  he  gave  it  in  practice  is  quite  another. 

%  See  also  A  47ab,  547b,  5S3  sqq.,  7G7. 


i. 


15 

this  relationship  with  him*  In  the  biblical  phrase  "through 
Christ"  the  very  preposition  promotes  his  jealous  regard  for  the 
honor  of  the  Son  as  an  absolutely  divine  Saviour.f  No  theologian, 
in  fact,  has  ever  more  strongly  recognized  both  the  supernatural 
and  the  Clu-istocentric  character  of  Christianity.!  Hence  the 
numberless  reminders  that  to  know  Cluist  aright  is  life's  chief 
duty.  §  The  whole  Gospel  is  conceived  as  a  fourfold  revelation  of 
the  promises  and  prophecies  concerning  Christ,  of  then-  actual  ful- 
fillment, of  his  glorification,  and  of  our  participation  m  him.|| 
Fu-nily  and  squarely,  therefore,  Schwenclcfeld  took  his  stand  upon 
the  ultimate  and  comprehensive  basis  of  the  Reformation,  the  prin- 
ciple that  salvation  flows  not  from  man  but  from  God  through 
Christ.  What  then  constitutes  the  essential  difference  between 
him  and  his  diverse  antagonists?  The  answer  is  fomid  in  his  char- 
acteristic doctrine  of  the  spiritualistic  mediatorship  of  Christ, 
which  affected  the  whole  range  of  his  thought  and  fixed  a  gulf 
between  him  and  his  opponents  on  all  questions  pertaining  to  the 
Scriptures,  the  Cluuch  and  the  Sacraments.  We  therefore  pro- 
ceed, in  the  light  of  this  central  fact,  to  take  a  second  survey  of 
these  related  subjects,  reproducing  as  faitlifully  as  possible  the 
polemic  bearings  of  his  system. 

First  in  the  order  of  thought,  as  also  m  the  order  of  importance, 
is  the  antinomy  between  the  Scriptures  and  the  Word  of  God. 
And  on  this,  as  on  most  of  the  other  issues,  the  chief  opposition 
was  directed  against  the  party  from  whom  he  had  learned  most, 
the  Lutherans. 

Luther  had  rediscovered  the  CIn-istian  religion  by  rediscovering 
the  central  truth  of  the  Gospel,  the  revelation  of  God's  grace  in 
Jesus  Christ.  Deeply  mfluenced  by  the  German  mj-stics— they 
were,  of  course,  the  legitimate  representatives  of  vital  piety  in 
those  days,  in  opposition  to  that  official  system  of  scholastic  the- 
ology, media;val  asceticism  and  sensuous  ecclesiasticism  that  had 
all  but  converted  religion  mto  a  flat  moralism — he  none  the  less 
was  saved  from  all  ecstatic  excesses  by  the  safeguards  of  a  pro- 
fomidly  ethical  spirit  that  never  failed  to  ground  the  assurance  of 

*  D  102,  290. 
t  D  292,  cf.  339b. 

t  See  e.g.,  A  327  sg.,  72r,c,  D  2S7,  595,  647,  0.55,  09S. 

§  A  239,  631,  641  sq.,  604,  907  sgq.     Seethe  treatise  (D 77-91),  Ermahnung  zur 
wahren  und  seligmachcnden  Erkcnntnis  Christi. 
II  A  &60-865. 


16 

its  pardon,  the  joy  of  its  salvation,  upon  the  objectively  revealed 
truth  of  God,  and  therefore  upon  the  historic  work  of  Christ.  His 
pearl  of  greatest  price  was  his  faith,  the  assui'ance,  based  upon  the 
Scriptures,  that  he  by  the  merit  of  Clirist  was  standing  in  the  favor 
of  God.  But  m  the  light  of  his  personal  experience,  and  especially 
under  pressure  from  the  Romanists,  his  enemies  on  the  right  whig, 
Luther  was  now  led  to  criticise  and  indeed  to  subvert  the  traditional 
theorj-  of  the  magical  ex  opcre  operato  efficacy  of  the  sacraments. 
In  fact  the  very  existence  of  these  rites,  regarded  in  any  proper 
sense  of  the  term  as  means  of  grace,  was  endangered.  Reduced  in 
number  from  seven  to  two  (or  three),*  thej'  furthermore  became 
mere  external  signs  of  the  one  true  sacrament,  the  Word.f  Gauged 
by  his  pruiciple,  "faith  constitutes  the  power  of  the  sacrament," 
then-  value  is  seen  to  be  reduced  practically  to  nothing.^ 

But  Luther  in  those  first  days  of  heroic  defense  and  aggression 
went  much  farther.  It  is  well  kno-mi  with  what  boldness  and 
scorn  of  logical  consequences  he  could  apply  the  criterion  of  his 
own  religious  experience  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
namely,  whether  or  not  they  made  Christ  their  chief  concern. § 
He  did  not  hesitate,  therefore,  to  lay  threatenmg  hands  upon  the 
letter  of  Scripture,  whenever  it  seemed  impossible  to  bring  the  text 
into  harmony  with  the  facts  of  his  own  religious  life.  The  very 
term  ' '  Word  of  God ' '  had  not  from  the  first  that  fixed  content  and 
value  which  it  later  acquhed.  He  had  freely  employed  the  Augus- 
tinian  distinction  between  the  "mner"  and  the  "outer"  Word. || 

*  See  the  treatise,  De  Captivitate  Babylonica,  which  is  not  only  epoch-making  in 
the  history  of  the  sacraments  in  general,  but  also  fundamental  to  Luther's  develop- 
ment of  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper  in  particular. 

t  Cf.  Thimme,  Enta-icldung  und  Bedeulung  der  SakrameriidchTe  Luthcrs,  in  the 
Neue  Kirchliche  Zeitschrift,  1901,  p.  754.  On  the  general  subject  of  Luther's 
doctrine  of  the  sacraments  consult  also  Kahnis,  Die  Lehrc  vom  Ahcndmahl, 
Gobel,  in  Theologische  Studicn  und  Kritiken,  1843,  2.  H.,  pp.  333  sgg.,  and  the 
histories  of  doctrine,  especially  Seeberg. 

J  Cf.  his  Untrrrichl  an  die  BeiclUkindcr  (anno  1521):  "Das  gottliche  Wort, 
in  der  Bulla  verdammt,  ist  mehr  denn  alle  Dinge,  -nelches  die  Seele  nicht  mag 
entbehren,  mag  abcr  wohl  des  Sacraments  entbehren ;  so  wird  dicli  der  rechte 
Bischof  Christus  selber  speiscn,  geistlich,  mit  dcmselben  Sacrament.  Lass  dir 
nicht  seltsam  sein,  ob  du  dassclbe  Jahr  nicht  zum  Sacrament  gehest"  (St.  Louis 
Ed.,  Vol.  XIX,  col.  812). 

§  Literally  "drive  Christ"  ("Christum  treiben");  Preface  to  the  Ep.  oj  James. 

II  It  ought  at  once  to  be  added,  however,  that  Luther  soon  succeeded  in  estab- 
lishing a  definite  and  fixed  relation  between  the  two:  the  former  is,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  bound  to  the  latter. 


17 

It  is  idle  to  speculate  as  to  what  he  might  have  done  with  this 
formula  had  it  not,  in  the  hands  of  the  fanatics,  imperiled  his 
whole  achievement.  The  fact  remains,  however,  that  not  only  in 
his  critical  remai-ks  on  the  New  Testament  books,  but  in  many  an 
occasional  utterance  as  well,  he  coimtenanced  the  separation,  so 
dear  to  the  mystic's  heart,  between  the  Scriptures  and  the  Word 
of  God,  between  the  "outer"  and  the  "umer"  Word* 

It  was  with  such  aspects  of  Luther's  original  teachings  that 
Schwenckfeld  was  in  perfect  accord. f  In  this  sense  he  interpreted 
the  immediate  past.  "Thus  our  doctorcs  in  the  beginning  taught 
the  true  view  of  the  Word  of  God  and  his  divine  ordinance,  and 
built  upon  the  one  solid  foundation,  namely,  upon  the  eternal  li\'ing 
Word  Christ  which  is  with  the  Fathei-.  They  accordingly  taught 
that  faith  and  eternal  salvation  are  not  bound  to  any  external 
word  or  work  nor  given  tlu-ough  any  external  means,  but,  as  God's 
work,  gift,  and  pure  grace,  they  come  without  means  from  God 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  through  Jesus  Christ,  who  as  the  head  flows 
into  them  as  the  members  of  his  body."f  And  for  this  very 
reason  Schwenckfeld  frequently  expresses  his  disapproval  of  the 
reactionary  tendency  that  took  hold  of  Luther  about  the  year  1522. 
"Thereafter,  however,  when  they  began  to  quarrel  so  much  and 
give  their  carnal  desires  so  much  scope  in  the  things  of  God;  after 
the  controversy  on  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
had  arisen,  ....  they  inverted  the  true  order  in  the  work  of 
God,  in  the  spread  of  his  Word,  and  in  man's  justification,  and  ui 
this  and  many  other  respects  they  held  and  taught  views  contrary 
to  their  former  doctrine  and  books,  so  palpably  indeed  that  one 
could  fairly  lay  hands  on  the  discrepancy."  § 

That  Luther's  view  of  the  Word  and  sacraments  did  in  fact 
suffer   a   retrogressive   transformation   camiot   be   denied.  ||     We 

*  Cf.  Schenkel,  Das  Wesen  des  Prolcstantismus,  I,  130;  Harnack,  Dogmcng.,  IIP. 
771  sq.;  Loofs,  Dogmcng..  p.  373. 

t  It  -n-ould  be  instructive  to  carry  out  in  detail  the  resemblances — often  enough, 
of  course,  they  are  merely  verbal  and  sviperficial— between  Schwenckfeld  and 
Luther  before  the  outbreak  of  the  AVittenberg  disturbances.  Cf.  Hase  (Kirchen- 
geschichle,  III,  1,  p.  300):  "Er  hidt  eine  Richtunp  fest,  das  innere  Geistes- 
cliristenthum,  die  fruher  auch  in  Lutlicr  eine  Macht  war." 

t  C  339cd. 

§  i.e..  p.  340c. 

Il  Tliimmc,  I.e.,  p.  876,  is  inclined  to  tliiuk  tliat  tlie  differences  between  the 
•arlier  and  the  later  Luther  on  the  subject  of  the  sacraments  have  been  unduly 
emphasized  as  against  the  confessedly  common  and  permanent  elements.  After 
2 


18 

cannot  go  into  the  details  of  this  reaction.  Only  a  few  of  the  more 
striking  passages  may  be  cited  in  order  that  vce  may  the  better 
understand  Schwenckfeld's  polemic*  ' '  God  deals  with  us  in  two 
ways:  externally  through  the  oral  word  and  through  bodily  signs 
(baptism  and  the  eucharist).  Inwardly  he  deals  with  us  through 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  faith  together  with  other  gifts;  but  always  in 
due  order  and  measure,  so  that  the  external  things  shall  and  must 
precede,  and  the  internal  things  come  after  and  through  the  ex- 
ternal ones;  in  such  wise,  that  he  has  determined  to  give  the  inter- 
nal things  to  no  one  save  tluough  the  external  things;  for  he  will 
give  no  one  the  Spirit  or  faith  without  the  external  word  and  sign 
which  he  has  appointed  for  that  purpose. "f  Very  characteristic 
is  his  assertion :  ' '  God  lets  the  Word  of  the  Gospel  go  forth  and  the 
seed  fall  into  the  hearts  of  men.  Where  the  seed  is  lodged  in  the 
heart,  there  is  the  Holy  Spirit  to  regenerate;  there  is  produced 
another  man,  other  thoughts,  other  words  and  works."J  How 
much  importance  is  at  times  attached  to  the  verhum  vocale  may  be 
seen  in  the  following  statement:  "The  fingers  which  baptized 
me  are  not  the  fingers  of  a  man  but  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the 
mouth  and  word  of  the  preacher  v.'hich  I  heard  are  not  his  but  the 
word  and  .sermon  of  the  Holy  Spirit." § 

B\it  it  is  needless  to  multiply  the  evidences:  in  the  genumely 

all,  it  is  a  question  of  ha%-ing  an  adequate  standard  of  measurement.  To  a  man 
of  Schwenckfeld's  type  the  differences,  even  as  Thimme  represents  them,  would 
necessarily  appear  to  constitute  a  lamentable  relapse  toward  Rome.  That  Re- 
formed theologians  will  in  this  matter  agree  with  Harnack's  severe  criticism  of 
Luther  goes  without  saying.     Harnack,  Dogmeng.,  IIP,  792  sqq. 

♦Otto,  Die  Anschauungen  vom  heiligen  Geiste  bci  Luther  (Gottingen,  189S), 
has  an  excellent  section  on  the  relation  of  the  Word  and  Spirit  in  Luther. 

t  Luthers  WeTke,  St.  Louis  Ed.,  XX,  col.  202.  The  Augsburg  Confession  gave 
classical  expression  to  this  ^■iew  (Schaff,  Creeds,  III,  p.  10):  "Nam  per  Verbum 
et  Sacramenta,  tanquam  per  instrumeiita,  donatur  Spiritus  Sanctus,  qui  fidem 
efficit,  ubi  et  quando  ^^sum  est  Deo,  in  iis,  qui  audiunt  Evangclium."  Luther 
himself  in  the  Schmalcald  Articles  maintained  (Hase,  Libri  Siimbolici,  P.  Secunda, 
Artt.  Smalc,  VIII,  3):  "Et  in  his,  qua;  vocale  et  externum  verbum  concernunt, 
constanter  tenendum  est,  Deum  nemini  Spiritum  vel  gratiam  suam  largiri,  nisi, 
per  verbum  et  cum  verbo  externo  et  pr.Tcedente,  ut  ita  prannuniamus  nos 
adversus  Enthusiastas,  id  est,  spiritus,  qui  jactitant,  se  ante  verbum  et  sine 
verbo  spiritum  habere,  et  adeo  Scripturam  sive  vocale  verbum  judic.ant,  flectunt 
et  reflectunt  pro  libito."  He  went  so  far  as  to  say  (ibid.,  VIII,  9):  "Et  nullus 
Propheta,  sive  Elias  sive  Elisajus,  Spiritum  sine  decalogo  sive  verbo  vocali 
accepit." 

J  St.  Louis  Ed.,  IX,  col.  116.3. 

§  This  and  many  other  equally  remarkable  passages  may  be  found  in  Otto,  I.e. 


19 

Lutheran  conception  the  Spirit  is  bound  to  the  Word  and  the 
sacraments,  and  these  contain  in  themselves  the  supernatural 
gi'ace  which  produces  saving  effects  in  the  beHeving  heart.*  More 
and  more  the  visible  sign  had  been  magnified  until,  in  alleged  con- 
formity vnih  the  conunandment  of  God,  the  external  sacrament  is 
identified  as  a  verhitm  risibile  with  the  Word,  and  this  in  turn  is 
made  the  real  manifestation  of  God's  grace. 

Against  this  conception  of  Christianit}',  in  which  he  rightly 
divined  a  retrogression  toward  Rome,  Schwenckfeld  opposed  first 
of  all  a  generically  different  theory  of  the  Word.  The  distinction 
between  the  "inner"  and  the  "outer"  Word  assumes  a  basal 
importance.  The  following  passage  contauis  the  heart  of  the 
matter:  "The  Word,  therefore,  when  the  servants  of  the  Spirit 
preach  or  teach,  is  of  two  kinds,  but  with  a  marked  difference  in 
the  transactions:  one  which  is  of  God  and  itself  God,  which  also 
richlj'  lives  and  works  in  the  servant's  heart;  that  is  the  inner  Word, 
and  is  in  reality  nothing  other  than  Christ  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
is  inwardlj'  revealed  and  heard  by  the  new  man  with  the  believing 
ears  of  the  heart.  The  other,  which  serves  this  inner  Word  with 
voice,  soimd  and  expression,  is  called  the  oral  or  external  Word, 
and  this  is  heard  with  carnal  ears,  even  those  of  the  natural  man, 
and  is  written  and  read  in  letters.  But  he  who  has  read  or  heard 
only  that  and  not  also  the  inner  Word  has  not  heard  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  the  Gospel  of  giace,  nor  has  he  received  or  understood  it."t 
Corresponding,  then,  to  the  inner  and  the  outer  Word  are  two 
kinds  of  hearing,  two  kinds  of  faith,  two  kinds  of  knowledge  of 
Christ,  two  kinds  of  biblical  exegesis:  that  of  the  letter  and  that  of 
the  Spirit.  The  prime  requisite  is  a  spiritual  apprehension  of  the 
Gospel,  i.e.,  of  Christ  the  Word. 

But  of  what  account,  then,  are  the  Scriptures?  That  they  are  in 
no  ca.se  to  be  regarded  as  "means  of  grace,"  in  the  ordinary  sense 
of  the  term,  we  have  already  seen.  But  Schwenckfeld's  repug- 
nance to  the  term  Gnadenmitiel  must  not  mislead  us  into  supposmg 
that  he  took  the  position  of  the  extreme  radicals  on  this  question. 

*  The  adjective  "believing"  is  of  course  all-important  in  tlie  Lutheran  state- 
ment. Schwenckfeld  indulged  in  much  unwarranted  criticism  of  his  opponents 
because  of  his  misapprehension  of  the  nature  of  their  "faith." 

t  A  767ab;  see  the  whole  letter,  pp.  764-7S0.  Cf.  D  241,  330,  3G1,  5C3,  630bc, 
8S7a,  and  the  tract  Vom  Unterschiede  dcs  Worts  des  Geislc^  und  Buchslabens. 
This  dualism  conc<'rning  the  Word  colors  the  whole  work  of  Schwenckfeld.  It 
is  based,  as  we  shall  find,  upon  a  philosophic  dualism  between  God  and  the  creature 
world. 


20 

We  must  do  justice,  in  turn,  to  what  we  may  regard  as  the  higher 
elements  of  his  view. 

The  Bible,  it  is  clearly  recognized,  comes  from  God.*  It  is  in- 
spired bj'  the  Holy  Spirit. f  In  numberless  passages  Schwenck- 
feld  seeks  to  clear  himself  from  the  charge  that  he  is  a  despiser  of 
the  sacred  oracles.  He  repudiates  the  calumny  of  his  enemy 
Flacius  Illyricus,  who  charged  him  with  teaching  that ' '  faith  is  not 
according  to  the  Holy  Scripture,  but  the  Holy  Scriptm-e  must  be 
directly  conformed  to  faith. "J  The  Scriptures  should  be  faithfully 
read  and  diligently  preached.  §  Catechetical  instruction  in  them 
ought  to  be  revived. II  Picture  books  dealing  with  biblical  events 
ought  to  be  printed  for  the  special  benefit  of  children.^ 

But  still  weightier  considerations  must  be  brought  forward. 
Schwenckfeld  unequivocally  asserts  the  normative  and  binding 
authority  of  the  Scriptures.  To  be  sure  the  contrary,  as  has  been 
noted,  seems  at  times  to  be  the  case.  None  the  less  the  Bible 
was  his  last  coui't  of  appeal.  On  all  the  controverted  points  of  the 
age  he  went  directly  to  the  Scriptures.**  With  him  as  with  his 
opponents  the  fuial  question  was  simply  the  exegctical  one. ft  He 
never  presumes  to  place  his  Christian  consciousness  in  a  position 
of  higher  authority  tlian  that  of  the  WTitten  Word.iJ     He  ex- 

*  A  441,  D  54.5a.  t  D  86Sb.  J  C  464b;  cf.  D  545,  86S. 

§C4S6:  "Und  am  ersten  dass  Philippi  [Melanclithoiis]  Beschuldifoing  nicht 
wahr  ist,  dass  ich  das  Horen,  Leseu,  Betrachten  des  geschriebenen  oder  miind- 
lichen  Evangelii  verwerfe  oder  sage,  dass  Gott  nicht  dabei  (wenn's  im  Gl.auben 
geschieht)  mit  Gnaden  wirke."  The  following  is  decisive  on  the  question  of 
preaching  the  AVord  (B  lG2c):  "Der  Predigt  halben  wiiuscht  er,  dass  nicht 
allein  in  den  Kirchen,  sondern  auch  in  Hausern,  auf  den  Markten  und  Dacliern, 
EU  Wasser  und  Land,  der  Name  Jesu  Christi  recht  bekannt  werde,  ja  dass  in  der 
ganzen  Welt  das  Evangeliura  Jesu  Christi  und  der  Reichtum  seiner  Gnaden 
verktindigt,  ausgebreitet,  und  gepredigt  'werde." 

I!  B  3CSd,  373d. 

'\  B  3S0 ;  see  also  the  whole  tract,  Ein  kurzer  Bcricht  von  der  TTeiso  des  Cate- 
chismi,  by  Xa\.  Krautwald. 

**  Cf.  A  2Sd:  "Also  muss  man  auch  bald  wenn  einem  ein  streitiger  Punkt  wird 
vorgeworfen,  zur  Bibel  laufen,  das  Vorderste  und  das  Hinderste  (und  nicht 
allein  den  blossen  Bprucli)  dabei  wohl  besichtigen,  bedenken,  und  ansehen,  so 
■wird  man  es  oft  ^iel  anders  finden  als  es  sieli  mancher  lasst  einbilden."  Cf.  C 
77d. 

tt  His  works  abound  in  expositions  of  biblical  passages.  His  exegesis  is,  to  be 
sure,  influenced  by  the  allegorical  tendencies  of  the  time,  but  it  fairly  attains 
the  average  level  of  sobriety  and  moderation.  And  however  difficult  it  may  be 
for  us  to  harmonize  some  of  his  extreme  utterances  as  to  the  inner  and  outer 
Word,  the  fact  must  never  be  lost  sight  of  that  after  all  he  gets  his  "theology" 
from  the  same  book  as  his  opponents. 

Jt  It  i?  manifestly  a  perversion  when  Kurtz  (Kirchengeschichte,  9.  Aufl.,  II,  p. 
150)  declares  "he  elevated  over  the  external  Word  of  God  in  the  Scriptures  the 
inner  Word  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  man." 


21 

pressly  denies  that  he  wished  to  have  Scripture  conformed  to  his 
faith,  "rather  than  have  his  faith  conformed  to  the  Scriptures.  To 
be  sure  he  often  speaks  slightingly  of  the  humanistic  culture  of  his 
day.  But  the  secret  of  his  attitude  toward  the  Bible  i.s  to  be  found 
in  "his  conviction  that  the  book  was  being  radically  misunderstood 
by  his  opponents  because  of  their  lack  of  true  faith.  Phihsophia, 
Fran  Hulda,  Vernunjt,  Diakctica,  Rhetorica,  and  Grammatica 
.were  westing  the  Scriptures  to  the  Church's  destruction.*  The 
prime  requisite,  therefore,  is  to  be  taught  of  God.f  To  this  end 
the  Spirit  must  illuminate  and  sanctify  the  reader's  mind.  For 
the  oial  Word  is  not  enough.J  Preachmg  may  reach  the  ear 
■without  touchmg  the  heart. §  The  external  Word  is  not  a  media- 
tor of  salvation,  II  but  when  rightly,  i.e.,  sphitually  understood, 
it  is  a  source  of  the  real  knowledge  of  Christ,  which  is  the  one 
thing  needful.  One  passage  may  serve  to  give  the  contents  of 
many:  "Accordingly  the  Gospel  of  Clirist  is  also  spoken  of, 
preached,  WTitten,  and  understood  in  such  a  double  manner  (al- 
though before  God  there  is  only  one  Gospel,  just  as  there  is  only 
one  Clirist),  namely,  accordmg  to  the  letter  and  according  to  the 
Spirit.  At  one  time  the  Scripture  speaks  of  the  Gospel  according 
to  the  external  service;  at  another,  according  to  the  iimer  mystery 
and  divine  essence;  or  according  to  history  and  according  to  the 
power  of  God.  The  Gospel  according  to  history,  or  according  to 
the  [external]  service,  and  outside  of  us,  is  the  discourse  or  out- 
ward sermon  concerning  Christ,  given  or  heard  by  the  servant  or 
preacher,  without  the  cooperation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  only  in  the 
letter,  and  grasped  by  human  reason  and  with  practice  and  dili- 
gence fastened  in  the  memory,  without  any  renewing  or  fructifying 
of  the  heart.  This  is  not  as  yet  the  true  Gospel,  indeed  scarcely 
a  picture,  copy,  shadow,  or  evidence  of  the  true  living  Gospel  of 

*  Of  the  many  passages  dealing  ^ith  his  distrust  of  reason,  see  e.?.,  A  234cd, 
257,  43S,  515,  828,  B  294,  446,  C  117,  252,  728,  C  1016,  D  159,  874. 

t  See  the  treatise,  Vom  Untcrschied  dcr  Schrijlgelehrlen  und  GoUesgelehrten; 
uas  auch  Schrijtgdehrte  und  Goltesgelchrte  heisseyi.  Schenkel,  Das  Wesen,  etc., 
Ill,  98,  not  inaptly  declares:  "Gelehrte  und  Verkehrte  sind  ihni  sinnverwandt." 

t  B  349c,  C  235b,  535c. 

§  C  487  sq.  show-s  how  Luther  himself  had  admitted  this,  but  later  with  his 
adherents  had  relapsed  from  this  position. 

li  A  765.  Tliis  however  dues  not  mean,  as  Dr.  Hodge  (Sy.sf.  Theology,  I,  82) 
interprets  Schwenckf eld's  view  of  the  Bible,  that  "the  Scriptures  are  not,  even 
instrumentaUy,  the  source  of  the  divine  life."  LogicaDy  indeed  Schwenckfeld 
was  bound  to  come  to  this  conclusion.  But  it  wa-s  characteristic  of  him  to 
shrink  from  the  extremes  to  which  the  strict  logic  of  his  system  would  have 
driven  him.  The  ordinary  doctrinal  phrases  can  never  with  justice  be  apphed 
I  to  him.     His  thought  is  cast  in  a  different  mould. 


22 

Christ,  no  matter  how  skillful,  learned,  and  eloquent  the  preacher 
may  be.  Therefore  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  to  speak  strictly,  is 
nothing  other  than  the  joyful,  comforting  good  news  of  redemp- 
tion and  eternal  salvation,  which  the  angel  of  the  great  council, 
Jesus  Christ,  brhigs  tlu-ough  the  Holy  Spirit  to  an  afflicted  heart, 
which  he  first  punishes  for  sin,  and  calls  to  repentance,  and  to 
which  he  then  proclaims  the  divine  peace  purchased  by  his  blood," 
etc.* 

But  of  course  the  decisive  question  is  not  whether  the  "external 
Word"  needs  the  accompaniment  of  the  "iimer  Word"  or  not, 
but  rather  whether  or  not  the  latter  may  dispense  with  the  former. 
Schwenckfeld's  opponents,  it  is  plain  from  his  defensive  attitude, 
accused  him  of  rejecting  the  Scriptures.  But  it  is  equally  clear 
that  his  assertion  of  the  need  of  a  spiritual  understanding  of  the 
Word  neither  exhausts  the  a  priori  possibilities  of  the  case  nor  con- 
stitutes a  complete  statement  of  the  actual  facts.  The  specific 
question  must  be  answered,  Is  there  any  spiritual  knowledge  pos- 
sible apart  from  the  WTittcn  Word? 

The  resemblance  in  this  particular  between  Schwenckfeld  and 
the  Quakers  is  too  obvious  not  to  have  been  a  subject  for  frequent 
comment.  Barclay,!  indeed,  maintains  that  the  teaching  of 
Schwenckfeld  and  Fox  was  identical  on  tliree  important  points: 
first  as  to  the  "Inward  Light,  Life  and  Word";  secondly  as  to 
"Immediate  Revelation";  and  lastly  as  to  the  inability  of  any 
external  bodily  act  to  convey  a  spiritual  reality  to  the  soul.  But 
neither  is  there  any  historical  connection  traceable  between 
Schwenckfeld  and  the  Friends,  nor  can  there  be  said  to  be  anything 
more  than  a  general  correspondence  and  similarity  between  their 
ideas;  both  represent  more  or  less  extreme  reactions  agamst  ecclesi- 
asticism,  sacerdotalism,  and  sacramentarianism.  As  against  the 
orthodox  Quakers,  Schwenckfeld  taught  a  peculiar  Christology 
which  gives  his  whole  system  a  different  complexion;  and  as 
against  the  heterodox  Quakers  he  held  a  far  more  moderate 
position  concerning  the  nature,  purpose  and  extent  of  the  Inner 
Light.  Now  and  then,  indeed,  he  uses  the  language  of  the  most 
radical  spiritualists.  Especially  does  this  seem  to  be  the  case 
when  statements  are  divorced  from  their  contexts.  The  following 
is  a  characteristic  negation:  "It  is  here  evident,  therefore,  that 
the  true  saving  knowledge  of  God  the  Father  and  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ  comes  from  no  other  source  than  a  gracious  divine  revela- 
tion  That  is,  that  the  Son  of  God,  Christ,  can  be  rightly 

♦  D  331b.     Cf.  A  CS7-689. 

t  The  Inner  Life  of  the  Reliyious  Societies  oj  the  Commonwealth,  p.  237  sqq. 


23 

known  neither  througli  human  reason,  nor  through  Scripture, 
nor  out  of  any  external  thing."*  It  is  well  known,  moreover,  how 
Ftrenuously  he  insisted  that  his  imique  interpretation  of  the  words 
"this  is  my  body"  was  due  to  special  revelation. f  This  was  one 
of  the  specific  charges  brought  against  him  by  Capito  and  Blaurer 
during  his  sojovun  in  southern  Germany. J  But  what  after  all  is 
his  doctrine  of  "revelation"?  The  context  of  the  passage  last 
quoted  is  too  important  to  leave  unnoticed:  "That  is,  that  the 
Son  of  God,  Christ,  can  be  rightly  kno-wn  neither  through  human 
reason,  nor  tlirough  Scriptui'e,  nor  out  of  any  external  thing, 
although  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  created  things  bear  witness 
to  him."§  In  fact  the  "light"  so  highly  prized  is  naught  but 
what  the  Apostle  Paul  prays  may  be  given  his  Ephesian  readers, 
"  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation"  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ.|| 
"That  is  what  the  Lord  Christ  means  by  hearing  and  learning  the 
Word  of  the  Father  and  commg  to  Christ,  and  as  he  says,  'they 
shall  all  be  taught  of  God.'  This  some  uicorrectly  refer  to  the 
Scriptures;  they  dislike  also  the  word  revelation,  regarding  it 
indeed  as  a  dream,  a  fancy,  a  fanatical  excess,  although  m  very 
truth  it  is  the  livhig  doctrine  of  God  from  His  Spirit  In  the  believing 
heart. "t  The  revelation  of  spiritual  truth,  therefore,  comes  not 
from  the  natural  man's  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  but  only 
from  the  real  AVord  Cluist  hunself,  through  his  Spirit  operating 
now  with  and  now  without  the  letter  of  the  Scriptures  or  any  exter- 
nal thing.  Thus  was  left  open,  to  be  sure,  a  way  of  retreating,  if 
need  were,  to  the  extremes  of  mere  subjectivism.  But  the  practical 
issues  of  the  day  made  him  retain  a  strong  hold  upon  the  sacred 
text:  the  spiritual  as  distinguished  from  the  literal  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures  is  the  heart  and  core  of  his  doctrine  concerning 
•'revelations"  to  the  individual  Christian.  He  was  opposed  to 
Luther's  idea  that  the  Spirit  never  operates  savingly  except  through 
the  AVord,  and  that  the  verbuni  itself  is  ilhistrans,  i.e.,  that  the 
Scriptures  contain  within  themselves  a  supernatural  and  divine 
power,  so  that  their  efficacy  is  independent  of  the  special  accom- 
paniment of  the  Spirit.**     But  that  he  did  not  quite  reproduce  the 

*A427d. 

t  More  generally  the  term  used  is  "OlTenbarung";  but  occasionally  ■we  find 
"gniidige  Heimsuching." 

t  See  Ilej-d's  article,  "Blavirer,  Schnepf,  Schwenckfeld,"  in  the  Tiihinger 
Zeitschrijt  jur  Theologic,  1S3S,  H.  4,  pp.  29,  35. 

J  A  427d.  II  A  42Sa.  \  A  428a. 

**  Hering,  Die  Mystil:  Luthers,  p.  4.5,  correctly  expresses  Luther's  viev;  as  fol- 
lows: "Das  Grundthema  seiner  Schriftauslegung:  das  Wort  ist  Geist,  ist  von 
dem  Zusatz  begleitet  zu  dcnken,  dass  Geist  im  Wort  ist." 


Wi 


24 

views  of  the  great  body  of  Cliristians  of  all  ages,  but  allowed  him- 
self to  reveal  a  bias,  logically  indeed  not  without  warrant  in  the 
position  of  his  chief  opponents,  yet  practically  objectionable, 
against  the  letter  of  Scripture,  is  due  not  only  to  the  polemic 
interest  that  dominated  his  work  but  also  and  primarily  to  the 
necessities  of  his  system  of  thought.  Wherever  the  practical 
problems  of  liis  situation  claim  his  chief  attention,  however,  the 
decisive  authority  of  the  Bible  is  freely  conceded.  "Thus  do 
we  conclude  om-  admonition  concerning  the  true  and  spiritual 
knowledge  of  Christ,  whicli  also  is  the  sole  criterion  {basis  d  norma) 
bj'  which  to  know  and  judge  all  mamier  of  doctrines,  opinions, 
errors  and  sects.  Nor  do  we  know  any  better  or  more  convenient 
way  for  the  promotion,  reformation  or  improvement  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  and  doctrine  than  the  true  knowledge  of  Christ,  which 
must  be  secured,  not  only  out  of  Scripture  but  rather  out  of  the 
gracious  gift  of  the  Father's  revelation,  yet  in  such  wise  that  it  icill 
always  agree  or  harmonize  ivitJi  the  testimony  of  Scripture."*  The 
Spirit  therefore  works  when  and  where  and  how  he  pleases.  But 
the  Scriptures  are  his  product,  and  therefore  furnish  a  faithful 
criterion  for  ascertainuig  and  estimating  all  his  revealing  activities. 
TMien  rightly  used  they  simply  pomt  to  Christ. t  They  recede  in 
importance  behmd  the  manifestations  of  the  subjective  religious 
life  produced  by  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Spirit  upon  the 
heart.  But  Schwenckfeld,  in  spite  of  his  strong  dislike  of  the  term 
Gnadenmittel,  stWl  concedes  the  serviceableness  of  the  Scriptures  in 
pointing  the  enlightened  reader  to  the  real  "Word  of  God,  the  Son 
himself.  The  blessings  of  the  Gospel  are  communicated  by  the 
Spirit  operating  without  means  upon  the  heart:  the  Scriptures  are 
no  mediators  of  salvation.  But  none  the  less,  when  rightly  inter- 
preted, the  inspired  documents  fulfill  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
the  function  of  means  of  giace  in  anj'  but  the  strictly  Lutheran 
acceptation  of  the  term.  "For  although  God  the  Ahnighty  him- 
self teaches  his  disci])lcs  inwaixlly  througli  Cliiist  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
the  pure  divine  truth,  he  has  nevertheless  appointed  for  them 
external  teachers  and  learning  also,  such  as  servants  of  the  \Yord 
of  God,  preachers,  teachers,  expositors  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  etc., 
whom  God  the  Lord  calls,  sends,  and  through  his  Spirit  urges  to 
promote  his  divine  doings  among  liis  people,  whose  service  he  also 

*  ' '  Docli  so  class  es  alle  Wege  init  der  Schrift  Zcugnis  stinime  oder  iibereintrage" 
(D  G21>). 

t  D  868cd  (in  margin):  "Die  licilige  Schrift  weiset  von  sicli  und  ulier  sicli  zum 
Arzt  Christu,  der  allfin  Gc^undlicil  und  Ltbcii  giebt."  "Die  H.  fSilirift  zeugt 
vora  Arzte  und  der  Ivraft  seiner  Arztnei,  sic  ists  aber  niclit  selbst."     Cf.  C  1010. 


25 

blesses,  in  order  that  it  may  serve  in  the  grace  of  God  for  the  edifica- 
tion of  Christians  in  Clirist  and  their  soul's  salvation."* 

The  same  unstable  equilibrium  is  to  be  seen  n  Schwenckfeld's 
attitude  toward  the  Chm'ch  as  an  institution  for  the  furtherance 
of  the  religious  life.  We  have  seen  how  little  regard  or  capacity 
he  had  for  organization,  how  his  strongly  anti-ecclesiastical  spi:  it 
voiced  itself  in  declarations  which,  followed  to  then-  logical  concl;;- 
sion,  would  leave  no  place  whatever  for  the  external  Churcii. 
Against  this  very  charge  of  abolishing  the  ministerial  office  and 
the  public  worship  of  the  sanctuary  he  had  frequently  to  defend 
himself.!  It  is  plain,  however,  that  the  criticism  is  only  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  justifiable.  He  himself  sets  forth  his  position  as  fol- 
lows: "I  object  to  no  one's  hearing  sermons  as  opportunity  ofTers; 
nor  do  I  (as  the  Baptists  do)  bind  the  conscience  in  this  matter  as 
if  it  were  sin;  nor  do  I  advise  the  endm-ance  of  exile.  I  therefore  in 
these  days  of  dispersion  let  every  one  abide  in  his  freedom."! 
Here,  as  in  the  doctrme  of  the  Word,  Schwenckfeld  distinguished 
between  the  internal  and  the  external  Church.  §  The  latter,  the 
true  Church  of  God,  is  made  up  of  the  company  of  the  real  believers. 
Their  head  is  Christ.  He  rules  and  builds  them  up.||  Their  salva- 
tion is  not  bound  to  anj'  external  means  or  mstitution  as  an  indis- 
pensable condition  for  its  bestowal. Tj  But  on  the  other  hand  there 
are  not  wanting  indications  that  Schwenckfeld  was  unwilling  to  go 
the  whole  length  of  the  Anabaptist  idealization  of  the  historic 
Church.     Even  liturgical  ceremonies  have  a  helpful  mission,  pro- 

*  D893d. 

t  Melandithon,  under  date  of  October  18,  1.535.  -nTote  as  follows  to  Frecht: 
"De  Schwenkfeldio  et  Franco,  Chronicorum  scriptore,  placet  niilii  judicium 
tuum.  Nam  et  ego  utrumque  severe  cocrcendum  esse  judico,  etsi  Scliwenkfeldium 
stultum  niagis  quam  improbum  esse  arbitror;  sed  tamen  liypocrisis  apud  ^■ulgus 
nocet  et  habet  hoc  [hie],  ut  ex  CEcolampadio  audire  niemini,  nullam  ecclesiae 
formam,  hoc  est,  nulla  ministeria  probat  ....  Ego  vero  omnes,  qui  in  nostris 
ecclcsiis  de  ministeriis  publicis  parum  honorifice  sentiunt  dignosodio  esse  censeo" 
(Corpus  Bcj.,  ed.  Bretschueider,  II,  col.  935). 

J  C  894c. 

§  ' '  Kun  ist  das  Wortlein  Kirche  ccquivocum,  da."!  ist,  da.ss  m.in  von  der  Kirche  so 
■nohl  als  vom  Glauben  odcr  Glaubigen  auf  zweierlei  AVeise  pflegt  zu  reden :  einmal 
nacli  dem  Grunde  der  'Wahrheit  wie  es  vor  Gott  damit  steht,  we  die  Kirche  aus 
Christo  in  scinem  Keiche  wird  erbaut  und  vereinigt,  wie  er  sic  regicrt  und  erhalt 
ini  Reiche  der  Gnadcn  ....  Zum  andcrn  mal  redct  man  von  der  Kirche  Christi 
iKich  ilirer  Versammlung  iin  Dienstc  der  .^postel  und  anderer  Diener  des  heiligen 
Geistes  wekhe  von  Cliristo  dem  Hiinmelkonig,  seinem  A'olke  zu  dienen,  und  in 
der  Erbauung  seines  Leibes  Ilandreichung  zu  thun  bestellt  werden."  B  654bd; 
cf.  D  10-15,  Von  der  cltrisllichcti  Kirclie. 

II  A  870b,  97a. 

^  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Schwenckfeld  taught  that  there  were  undoubt- 
edlv  Christians  even  among  the  Turks  of  that  day.     A  782  sq. 


""  "-"ifHl7i--i  JL 


26 

vided  onl}'  that  no  trust  be  placed  in  them*  Preaching  is  there- 
fore of  cardinal  importance,  even  if  it  is  not  to  be  identified  Mith 
the  power  of  Christ,  but  only  to  be  regarded  as  pointing  toward 
him  and  thereby  serving  hini.f  Even  pictures,  if  not  worshiped, 
may  be  used  with  advantage. J 

It  must,  of  course,  be  admitted  that  Schwenckfcld  had  not  a 
suiRcientiy  clear  and  consistent  view  as  to  the  need  of  ecclesiastical 
organization.  He  could,  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  rigoristic 
and  puritanic  requirements,  have  insisted  upon  a  fan-  degree  of  or- 
ganization under  leaders  of  his  own  choosing.  Few,  however,  will 
fail  to  approve  his  views  so  far  as  their  criticism  of  the  historical 
situation  is  concerned.!  He  could  not,  with  his  rich  spiritual  ex- 
perience, rest  content  with  a  Csesaro-papal  ecclesiasticism  which 
seemed  to  endanger  the  whole  Protestant  cause,  which  in  large 
measure  destroyed  the  new-born  spirit  of  religious  freedom  by  per- 
mittmg  the  use  of  the  sword  even  in  matters  of  such  subordinate 
importance  as  the  observance  of  ceremonial  rites.||  He  left  the  ex- 
isting Churches  not  from  choice  but  from  necessit}':  they  did  not  in 
any  satisfactory  measure  embody  his  ideals.  But  to  organize  his 
followers  according  to  his  o^^•n  principles  he  had  neither  the  wish 
nor  the  ability.  And  thus  his  theory  of  the  Church  reached  no  ad- 
vanced stage  of  development.  His  views  oscillated  between  an 
apparently  absolute  denial  of  the  need  and  advantage  of  an  external 
institution  and  the  generous  recognition  of  the  mission  of  the  de 

*  A  840c:  "Also  mochte  ich  audi  von  Ceremonien  sagen  welche  ausserlicher 
Gottesdienst  oder  Kircheniibungen  heisscn,  deren  viel  nur  Tvohl  und  niitzlich 
mogen  gebraucht  ■werden.  Ich  achte  es  audi  nicht  dafiir,  dass  irgend  ein  Christ 
so  vermessen  sein  kann,  dass  er  alle  Ceremonien  (ob  man  wohl  kein  Vertrauen  drein 
setzen  noch  die  Sehgkeit  drin  soil  suchen)  ohne  Unterschicd  wolle  verwerfen. 
Sonst  wiirde  er  das  Predigtamt,  und  was  in  der  ICirche  ausserlich  gehandelt  \\-ird, 
auch  miissen  vernerfon."     Cf.  A  700a,  791b. 

tC997bc.  t  A  840a. 

J  See  the  impartial  judgment  of  Erbkam,  Gesrhichtc  rft/'  prot.  Sekten,  p.  435  sg. 

II  B  655d:  "Deshalb  denn  die  Definition  und  Beschreibung  der  Kirchen,  vne 
sie  in  dcr  Confession  [sc.  Augustana]  gcstcllt  ....  billig  soUte  gebessert  werden; 
damit  wir  Gott  den  Herrn  und  seine  Werke  nicht  abermals  an  uns  uniiutze 
Knechte  noch  an  den  Papst  und  Bischof  aufs  Neue  zwingen,  heftcn  oder  anbinden, 
sondern  den  Gang  dcr  Gnaden  Cliri^ti  und  seines  Geistes  Lchramt,  der  die  Herzen 
lehret  und  gcistct  wo  er  will,  dcsgli'idien  die  Erbauung  dcs  J^eibes  Cliristi  uberall 
frei  imGeisteund  unangebundenstelienlassen.  Wie  den  auch  die  hi.  Christliche 
Kirche  nicht  als  cine  andcre  Polizei  an  dies  oder  jenes  Land  eingezaunt, 
■weder  an  Rom,  AVittcnberg,  Zurich,  Genf,  Muhren,  noch  anderswo,  weder  an 
Zeit,  Personcn,  noch  an  ctwas  Ausserliches,  ja  weder  an  Prediger,  Predigt,  oder 
Sacrament  gebundon.  sondern  mit  ihren  Gliedcrn  allentlialbcn  durcli  die  ganze 
Welt,  wo  gUiubige  Christen  sind,  ist  au.sgebreit<;t."  On  the  functions  of  magis- 
trates concerning  the  Church,  see  A  79  sgg.,  401  sgq.,  el  passim.  Cf.  also  Schenkel, 
Das  W'esen  des  Prot.,  Ill,  382-3S0. 


27 


Jado  organizations,  provided  only  they  inculcated  a  spiritual  knowl- 
edge of  the  Head  of  the  Church* 

This  survey  of  Schwenckfeld's  doctrine  of  the  Word  and  the 
Church  will  help  us  to  secure  a  just  estimate  of  his  view  of  the 
purpose  of  the  sacraments.  We  are  prepared  to  find  his  funda- 
mental dualism  asserting  itself  also  in  this  branch  of  his  system. 
' '  For  to  a  complete  sacrament  two  things  are  necessary,  an  inner 
and  spiritual  element  and  an  outer,  bodily  element."!  The  sacra- 
ments, therefore,  are  profound  mysteries,  and  not  merely  external 
ceremonies.!  They  are  more  than  the  mere  addition  of  the  outer 
Word  to  the  given  elements.  §  The  prime  requisite  here  too, 
therefore,  is  precisely  that  which  has  been  so  often  emphasized,  the 
"judgment  of  the  spiritual  man,"  the  correct  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures.  It  is  this  lack  of  spiritual  msight  that  is  the  cause 
of  all  error  concerning  the  sacraments.  ||  For  this  very  reason  the 
eucharist  should  continually  be  discussed,  upon  the  biblical  basis, 
in  order  that  the  true  view  may  be  obtained.^  More  must  be  made, 
in  anj'  event,  of  the  spiritual  significance  of  the  ordinances.**  The 
failure  of  his  opponents  to  do  this  convicts  them  of  being  the  real 
despisers  of  the  sacraments.ft  On  the  other  hand,  he  strongly  pro- 
tests against  the  justice  of  this  charge  so  frequently  made  against 
him.JJ  It  is  not  with  the  sacraments,  but  with  the  misuse  of  them, 
that  he  finds  fault.  It  was  his  conviction  that  the  Church  was 
misinterpreting  these  sacred  rites  that  led  him  to  advocate  the 
StiUstaiul  in  the  case  of  the  Supper,  and  the  corresponding  custom 
of   substituting   for   sacramental   baptism    only    a   consecratory 

*  See  the  (LVI)  Fragen  ton  der  chrisilicken  Kirche,  -which  are  really  so  many 
attacks  upon  the  worldly  ecdesia-sticism  of  the  day,  and  so  many  defenses  of  his 
own  position  between  the  Romanist  and  .Anabaptist  extremes. 

t  B,  Part  I,  p.  140d. 

t  A,  p.  Xld.  Cf.  B,  Part  I,  p.  85cd:  "Drum  wenn  man  von  Sacramenten 
Christi  und  seiner  christlichen  Ivirche  redet,  so  redet  man  vornehmlich  von  einem 
Geheimnis  und  gottlich  oflenbarten  Handel,  darin  die  christgliiubige  Seele  ist 
und  wird  gereinigt,  erleuchtet,  wiedergeboren  und  von  Siinden  abgewaschen, 
durch  das  Bad  des  Wassers  im  Worte,  als  im  Sacrament  der  Taufe;  oder  darinnen 
eie  wird  gespeiset,  getrankt,  und  gesattigt  mit  dem  Leib  und  Blut  J.  Christi, 
dadurch  sie  wird  im  gottlichen  Leben  erhalten  und  darinnen  immer  femcr  auf- 
wachsen,  als  im  Sacrament  des  Nachtmals." 

{  Cf.  A  505a,  S55c.  ||  B,  Part  I,  101b.  %  A  312d,  393a-c. 

**  A  492c.  tt  A,  pp.  Xd,  XIa. 

tl  D  15d:  "Von  den  heiligen  Sacramenten  ....  glaube  ich  alles  was  die 
heilige  Schrift  sagt  und  wie  sie  vom  Herrn  Cliristo  gelehrt  und  fur  die  christ- 
glaubigen  eingesetzt,  auch  von  heben  .\posteln  und  der  christlichen  Kirche  nach 
dem  Befehl  des  Herrn  sind  gebraucht  worden  und  noch  in  der  versammelten 
Gemeinde  Gottes  also  gebrauclit  und  verstanden  soUcn  wcrden."  Cf.  D 
21  sq.,  544,  973,  C  283b,  687d,  730d,  B  104c,  A  331,  394,  etc. 


I 


tivrti  iiiiii'filMiiTiiiifiM 


28 

praj-er.  He  takes  his  stand  once  more  upon  the  sole  mediatorship 
of  Clirist  * 

The  general  ininciples  just  mentioned  we  find  exemplified  in  the 
statements  concerning  baptism.  The  outer  rite  must  be  carefully 
distinguished  from  the  imier  reality.  "But  we  must  remember 
that  in  the  complete  sacrament  of  the  baptism  of  Christ  two  things 
are  present,  namely,  an  external  and  an  internal  one;  the  elemental 
water  and  the  water  of  divine  grace  which  purifies  the  conscience. '"f 
The  external  water  cannot  cleanse.  "Let  them  loiow  in  the  first 
place  that  the  washmg  away  of  sins  does  not  belong  to  the  external 
baptism.  Then  let  them  be  assured  that  no  external  thing,  wash- 
ing or  water,  can  reach  or  remove  sin.  In  the  thii'd  place,  the}'  do 
not  permit  Christ  in  himself  and  by  himself  to  be  a  perfect  Saviour. 
It  is  therefore  a  grave  WTong  to  the  work  of  Christ  and  his  Spirit 
if  one  ascribes  or  concedes  to  the  water  or  other  created  things  in 
the  work  of  salvation  something  that  belongs  to  Clirist  alone."! 

The  primary  and  essential  element  m  baptism,  therefore,  is  the 
inner  grace,  the  bestowal  of  which  is  absolutely  independent  of  the 

*  C  44Sd:  "Das  ihr  begehret  zii  T\nssen,  -nne  ihr  es  richten  sollt,  dass  Nichts 
iiusserliches  das  Herz  errciche,  das  sollt  ihr  richten  auf  den  Handel  unserer 
Gerecht^  und  Seligwerdung,  niimlich  das  Herz  zu  bekehrcn,  zu  reinigen  und 
emeuern,  denn  v.ev  verniag  soklies  denn  allein  Gott  und  Christus  im  heiligen 
Geiste?  Das  fleisphliche  Herz  wird  wolil  oft  durch  iiusserliche  Dinge  bewegt  zu 
Freuden  und  Traurigkeit;  es  wird  aber  drum  durch  ausserliche  Dinge  nicht  selig 
noch  umgekehrt.  Christus  ist  der  Erneuerer  des  Herzen;  er  allein  vermag  die 
Siinde  draus  zu  nehmcn  und  seine  Gnade  darein  zu  geben."  Cf.  A  597  sgq.,  780, 
0  480c,  619,  D  440,  46Sab,  738.  For  extended  discussions  of  -nbat  he  regarded 
as  an  unwarranted  emphasis  upon  the  "external"  sacraments,  see  C  1015-1021, 
and  especially  the  first  two  letters  in  Part  I  of  B  (pp.  10-14G),  Votn  Grund  und 
Ursach  cks  Irrtxims  und  Spans  im  Artikel  vom  Sacrament  des  Herrn  A'achlmals 
and  Vom  Verstande,  Gebrauch,  und  Wiirdigkeit  dcr  Sacramcnie  Christi.  The 
Bekcnninis  und  Rcchcnscluxfi  von  den  Hauptpuncten  des  christlichen  Glaubens 
(D  pp.  1-62)  is  a  pncis  of  his  whole  system. 

t  A  19.5bc. 

t  A  32cd.     Cf.  -A.  37Scd,  497cd,  C  397,  43Sb,  520a,  and  many  other  passages  i 
all  of  the  folios.     To  be  sure  Luther  had  taken  pains  to  bring  the  word  of  com-£ 
mandmeut  (Matt,  xxviii.  19)  into  connection  with  the  water  of  baptism:  "Was-l 
Ber  thut's  freilicli  nicht,  sondcrn  das  Wort  Gottes  so  mit  und  bei  dem  AV.<isser  ist« 
und  der  Glaube  so  solchem  AVorte  Gottes  im  Wasser  trauet ;  denn  ohne  Wort> 
Gottes  ist  das  Wasscr  schlccht  AVasser  und  keinc  Taufe"  {Der  kicinc  Caleddsmuaf. 
Part  IV,  in  Scliaff's  Creeds,  III,  p.  SO).     None  the  less,  especially  in  the  matter; 
of  infant  baptism,  Luther  reopened  the  w-iy  for  the  magical  efficiency  of    thei' 
ex  opere  operalo  theory  of  the  sacrament.     The  consecrated  water  itself,  in  fact, 
possessed  a  divine  potency.     It  was  heavenlj-,  holy,  durcligOtlel.    Cf .  Sthenkel,  I.e., 
I,  448  sg.;  Thimme,  I.e.,  898;   Hering,  I.e.,  p.  287  sg.,  and  Harnack,  Dogmeng. 
Ill ',  792. 


1 


29 


external  rite.*  The  blood  of  Christ  is  the  only  sprinkling  that 
removes  the  defilements  of  SLii,t  or  rather — the  reason  for  this 
characteristic  emphasis  upon  the  unity  and  totality  of  Clu-ist's 
f)er?on  ^•ill  appear  later — Christ  himself  is  the  bath  of  regenera- 
tion .J 

Precisely  so  does  the  right  imderstanding  of  the  eucharist  neces- 
sitate a  sharp  distinction  between  the  outer  signs  and  the  inner 
realities,  between  the  external  and  the  internal  sacrament.  The 
parallelism  m  this  respect  between  the  Supper  'and  Baptism  is 
complete.  "As  I  have  hitherto  spoken  of  two  kinds  of  water 
in  the  Christian  sacrament  of  baptism,  so  I  find  in  the  complete 
sacramental  transaction  of  the  Lord's  Supper  two  different  kind.s 
of  bread,  or  food,  and  drink:  namely,  a  spiritual,  divine, 
heavenlj'  bread,  food,  and  cb-mk,  which  is  the  body  of  Christ 
given  for  us  and  his  sacred  blood  shed  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins; 
and  a  bodily  and  sacramental  bread  and  drmk,  which  the  Lord 
Jesus  before  his  departure  commanded  his  disciples  to  break, 
to  eat,  and  to  drink,  in  remembrance  of  him."§  The  former  is 
then  identified,  as  will  have  been  anticipated,  with  Christ  the  Son; 
it  is  the  bread  which  is  the  Lord.  The  latter  is  onlj'  the  "bread  of 
the  Lord."  Once  more,  therefore,  the  whole  question  turns  upon 
the  correct,  that  is  the ' '  spiritual, ' '  understanding  of  the  Scriptures. 
Once  more  Schwenckfeld  can  refute  the  charge  that  he  makes  light 
of  the  New  Testament  sacraments.  "In  the  same  way  I  request, 
wi.-^h,  and  desire  that  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  be  observed  by  the  believing  Christians  according  to  the 
institution,  intention,  and  will  of  the  Lord,  with  a  right  miderstand- 
ing,  knowledge,  and  faith,  also  with  a  due  examination  and  with  the 
due  accompaniments,  in  a  Christian,  devout,  and  reverent  manner, 
and  that  it  be  not  misused  to  condemnation  through  ignorance  and 
superstition.  Whether  this  means  rejecting  the  service  of  the 
Word  of  God  and  despising  the  holy  sacrament  ....  because  I 
distinguish  between  these  things  and  the  Word  which  is  spuit  and 

•  Cf.  KcliwenckWcl's  remarks  about  the  po.ssibility  and  the  need  of  an  oft- 
rcpeat«d  "spiritual  feet  washing."  "Die  Fusse  der  Christgliiubigen  werden 
inimer  prwasclicn  mit  dem  reinen  Wasser,  das  ohne  Unterlass  von  dera  Lcibe 
Chrifiti  flicsst"  (A  209d).  Again  (C  207a),  "Warum  treiben  sie"— he  is  speak- 
inp  of  the  Lutherans — "nicht  auch  so  fc*t  aufs  Fiisswaschen?  Tvelches  der  Herr 
eben  bo  wohl  als  da*  Werk  ihni  nachzuthun  hat  befohlen:  'So  ich  euer  Meister  und 
Herr  euch  die  Fiisse  gewasclien,'  "  etc.  That  is,  if  tlie  Lutlierans  take  this  cere- 
mony spiritually,  why  should  not  the  sacraments  also  be  so  understood? 

t  A  13d,  D  147   285b. 

J  A  31cd;  cf.  h,  Part  I,  121d. 

I  D  ISab. 


30 

life,  I  will  now  submit  to  the  Christian  Church,  your  grace,  and  all 
pious  Christians."* 

But  of  course  the  really  decisive  question  as  to  Schwenckfeld's 
conception  of  the  purpose  of  the  sacraments  is  still  to  be  raised. 
His  theoretical  distinction,  amoimting  in  practice,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  a  virtual  separation  between  the  outer  transaction  and  the 
inner  reality  in  the  Supper,  satisfied  neither  the  Romanists  and 
Lutherans  on  the  one  hand  nor  the  Zwinglians  and  Anabaptists  on 
the  other.  Indeed,  much  of  the  persecuted  man's  literary  activity 
was  due  to  his  desire  to  remove  the  misapprehensions  concernmg 
his  views  under  which  he  was  sure  his  opponents  were  laboring. 
But  in  spite  of  his  efforts  hi  this  dhection,  it  is  still  to  be  regretted 
that  the  inner  nexus  of  his  sacramentarianism  has  not  been  more 
clearly  set  forth.  For  this  obviously  is  the  crux  of  the  whole  prob- 
lem: are  these  outer  and  inner  circles  of  reality  truly  concentric,  or 
do  they  lie  in  such  remote  planes  that  all  possibility  of  a  causal 
connection  between  them  is  cut  off?  Does  this  fundamental  dual- 
ism result  in  an  absolutely  unmediated  juxtaposition  of  altogether 
disparate  elements?  Is  there  at  the  most  only  a  possible  simul- 
taneity between  the  external  and  the  internal  transactions?  What 
sort  of  balance  must  be  struck  between  Schwenckfeld's  assertion 
that  the  sacraments  are  serviceable,  j'et  are  not  means  of  grace?  Is 
he  thoroughly  consistent  with  himself  in  denying  the  propriety  of 
the  term  GnadenmiUe]  in  any  and  every  sense? 

How  much  injustice  in  this  regard  has  sometimes  been  done  to 
the  reformer  will  appear  from  our  answer  to  these  questions.  It 
is  difficult  to  present  his  views  with  perfect  accuracy  and  fairness 
in  any  other  than  his  own  words.  What  he  was  bomid  by  rigid 
self-consistency  to  say  is  one  thing;  what  he  actually  said  in  con- 
formity with  his  philosophic  and  theological  presuppositions,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  mider  the  influence  of  the  conditions  of  his  situa- 
tion, on  the  other,  is  quite  another  thing. 

The  external  rites — on  at  least  this  point  there  can  be  no  doubt — 
are  signs  and  .symbols  of  the  inner  reality,  of  the  truth,  the  essence, 
the  res  or  materia  of  the  sacraments.  This  fact,  it  may  be  assumed, 
has  become  plain  in  the  covuse  of  the  discussion.  There  are  those 
mdecd  who  regard  this  statement  as  the  only  proper  becaui^e  the 
perfect'y  exhaustive  one.f    There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  the 

*D5J5a. 

t  For  example,  Hahn,  SchwencJ.'eldii  Sentcniia,  etc.,  p.  60,  n.  1:  "Itaque 
acranicntis  externis  Scliwenckfeldius  putavit  non  nisi  adumbrari  res  divinas, 
quas  Cliristus  omnibus  fideni  liabentibus  quovis  tempore  distribuit." 


all 

d's 

gd. 

en, 

the   ' 

md 

on 

•ity 

ling 

ing. 

ited 

lore 

rob- 

c,  or 

.usal 

lual- 

•ther 

n^ul- 

\'hat 

rtion 

?     Is 

ty  of 

no  to 

3.       It 

irness 
rigid 
1  con- 
IP,  on 
sitvia- 

)ul)t— 
sscnce, 
5umed, 
2  those 
ISC  (he 
;  is  the 


"Il:irilie 
divinas, 


81 

mould  into  which  Schwenckfeld  most  frequently  cast  his  reflections 
on  the  teleology  of  the  sacraments.  With  what  sharpness  of  vision 
he  grasi)ed  this  aspect  of  the  problem  will  appear  from  a  citation 
of  several  of  the  most  important  deliverances.  "All  external 
things  are  only  representations  which  portray  or  point  and  lead  to 
the  eternal  divine  truth  which  is  dispensed  through  the  custodian 
of  the  holy  blessings,  through  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  God  is 
therefore  not  concerned  about  external  thmgs,  but  about  that  which 
is  represented  to  the  believer  by  means  of  the  external  thing  and 
which  is  distributed  through  Christ  in  the  Holy  Spirit."*  Again, 
"the  sacraments  are  indeed  spiritual  or,  if  the  term  be  rightly 
understood,  holy,  sacramental  signs,  because  they  point  to  holy, 
spiritual  things  and  signify  them.  But  they  caimot  impart  them, 
since  they  have  no  spiritual,  di^■ine  power  in  themi3elves."t  One 
of  the  clearest  statements  on  this  phase  of  the  subject  is  the  follow- 
ing: "All  external  things,  the  sacrament  and  other  things,  were 
instituted  by  Christ  for  our  sakes,  in  order  that  his  great  benefits 
and  his  work  in  the  believmg  heart  may  be  knowTi  and  remembered, 
and  that  the  great  riches  of  the  grace  of  God  which  he  has  caused 
to  be  manifested  to  all  men  in  Christ  may  be  kno^ii,  praised,  and 
magnified  in  all  the  world. "J 

The  external  rite,  therefore,  has  at  least  the  function  of  directing 
the  thought  of  the  participants  to  Clirist,  the  sole  source  of  saving 
grace.  But  is  there  beyond  this  any  necessary  sequence  between 
the  outward  ceremonial  and  the  bestowal  of  an  inner  sacramental 
blessing? 

It  is  plain  that  some  of  the  quotations  just  made  leave  absolutely 
no  room  for  an  affirmative  answer  to  this  question.  The  unequiv- 
ocal declarations  about  the  sole  mediatorship  of  Clirist  must  be 
allowed  to  retain  their  force  undiminished.  That  anything  in  the 
way  of  a  magical  efficiency  of  the  Gnadcnmiitcl  was  to  him  an  un- 
si.";ikablc  absurdity;  that  salvation  can,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  be 
conferred  without  any  means  whatsoever  by  an  immediate  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit  upon  the  heart;  that  the  blessings  conveyed,  ac 
cording  to  the  theories  of  his  opponents,  by  the  f;icraments  may 
be  daily  granted  even  to  those  who  do  not  attend  to  the  outward 
riles;  and  that  the  main  current  of  Schwenckfeld 's  thought  tends 
to  .=wcep  away  from  the  sphere  of  grace  every  sensuous,  external 
or  "creaturcly"  object,— these  propositions  may  be  regarded  as 
established  theses.    But  we  must  not  prejudge  the  case  by  sup- 

1 


tC5S0d. 


/losing  that  he  has  reduced  his  views  to  a  jierfectly  consistent^ 
'  unitary  system.  Granted,  for  instance,  that  the  Spirit  never 
■works  through  external  things:  it  might  still  be  asked,  whether  or 
not  he  ever  works  in  them  or  with  them?  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Schwenckfeld,  in  his  strong  desire  to  defend  himself  against 
his  adversaries  by  trying  to  conserve  the  objective  or  theological 
content  of  the  sacraments,  did  at  times  approach  the  Reformed 
doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace  in  the  narrowest  and  strictest  sense 
of  the  term.  The  evidence,  to  be  sure,  is  not  abundant.  The 
language  used  expresses  rather  the  feeUng  of  a  conservative  dis- 
position than  the  settled  conviction  of  a  severel}'  logical  mind. 
The  principle  is  fairlj'  established,  however,  that  the  blessings  of 
salvation  are  actually  bestowed  in  the  right  use  of  the  sacraments. 
"This  requires  the  right  imderstanding  and  use  of  the  sacraments 
of  Christ,  that  is  the  knowledge  of  Christ  according  to  the  Si)irit 
and  the  dispensation  of  the  mysteries  of  God  in  the  believing  soul,  it 
being  the  special  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  distribute  the  blessings 
acquired  by  Clu-ist  imto  all  believers  in  the  use  of  his  sacia- 
ments  {beiifi  Brauche  seiner  Sacraniente) ,  likewise  before  and  with- 
out the  use  of  them."*  To  be  sure,  even  here  the  place  of  empha- 
sis in  the  sentence  is  reserved  for  the  thought  that  the  sacraments 
are  by  no  means  necessary.  Likewise  characteristic  is  the  differ- 
ence in  the  prepositions  in  the  phrases  "durch  Christum"  and 
' '  beim  Brauche  seiner  Sacramente. ' '  But  the  manifest  coordina- 
tion of  the  two  methods  of  bestowmg  grace,  that  "with  the  use 
of  the  sacraments"  and  that  "before  or  without  them,"  shows  that 
in  some  real  sense  external  things  may  mediate  grace.  In  another 
passage  we  have  not  only  the  preposition  bci  but  also  in  used. 
"But  if  it  is  said  that  such  grace  comes  through  the  external 
thing,  or  that  the  external  thing  adds  something  in  the  form  of  an 
instrument,  or  that  the  grace  cannot  be  poured  in  or  given  witliout 
the  external  thing,  or  that  it  must  follow  the  latter,  this  is  all  pal- 
pable error.  For,  in  short,  the  grace  of  God  without  and  in  the 
external  thing  {ohne  ^n}d  beim  Ausserlichen)  alone  effects  salvation,! 
in  both  the  sacraments  and  other  spiritual  transactions."t  AVhen, 
therefore,  the  sacrament  is  truly  used,  it  "brings  grace  along  with 
itself."! 

*  B,  Part  I,  S5b.  t  B,  Part  I,  97d. 

t  "Dass  alicr  die  Sacramente  Cliristi,  wo  sie  reclit  verstanden  und  gel>rauclit 
werden,  Gnadc  mil  sich  bringcn  ist  wohl  aus  dcm  Excnipel  abzunehmen,  so  man" 
bedenkt,  wenn  ein  Cliristglaubiger  in  der  cliristlichcn  Kirclie  wird  getauft  und 
ihm  alle  Wohlthat  Cliristi  ■nird  vorgtlialten  werden,  dass  er  sich  ganz  und  gar 
Gotte  aufopfert,"  etc.  lOid.;  cf.  B  15d,  where  it  is  said  that  the  consccraird 
bread  "ought  to  serve  the  mystery  of  feeding  upon  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ." 


83 

These  citations,  then,  must  be  taken  as  an  authentic  commentary 
on  the  numerous  passages  in  Schwenckfeld  that  protest  against 
the  Gnadenmitiel.  The  common  representation,  that  he  taught 
"a  plan  of  salvation  without  the  means  of  grace,"*  must  be 
imderstood  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  the  sacraments  when  rightly 
used  may  and  really  do  convey  grace. f  ^Miethcr  or  not  they  may 
be  called  "means  of  grace''  will  depend,  therefore,  upon  whose 
definition  of  the  term  we  employ.  Romanists  and  Lutherans  will 
alike  answer  in  the  negative. J  But  in  a  sense  approximating  that 
of  the  Reformed  Church,  Schwenckfeld  may  fairly  be  said,  in  spite  of 
his  protests,  to  have  ' '  means  of  grace. ' '  His  theory  of  the  Supper, 
as  will  appear  when  we  discuss  the  question  of  the  mode  of  Christ's 
presence,  is  distinctively  higher  than  that  of  Zwingli.§    There  is, 

*  So,  e.g.,  Weiser,  in  his  article  on  "Casper  Schwenckfeld  and  the  Schwenk- 
feldians,"  in  the  Mercfrsburg  Renew,  July,  1870,  p.  150. 

t  The  "common  representation  is,  of  course,  essentially  correct,  inasmuch  as  it 
summarizes  the  content  and  also  the  spirit  of  the  great  bulk  of  passages  dealing 
with  the  subject.  But  by  an  occasional  inconsistency  Schwenckfeld  permitted 
himself  to  speak,  as  we  have  seen,  in  terms  that  compromised  the  rigor  of  his 
sj-stem  -n-ith  affection  for  the  time-honored  institutions  of  the  Church.  His  pre- 
suppositions forbade  his  making  the  sacraments  means  of  grace;  but  the  conten- 
tions of  his  adversaries  on  the  right  as  well  as  his  dissatisfaction  with  the  fanatics 
on  the  left,  above  all  the  overmastering  force  of  the  same  words  that  held  Luther 
captive — the  hoc  est  corpus  meum — made  him  sacrifice  something  of  hb  logic,  or, 
to  use  more  customarj-  but  less  intelligible  language,  his  "mystical  feeUng," 
against  external  ecclesiasticism. 

The  practical  question  concerning  the  use  of  the  sacraments  has  of  late  become 
acute  in  the  history  of  the  .Ajnerican  Schwenckfelders.  The  younger  and  more 
progressive  ministers  especially  are  inclined  to  put  a  lax  construction  upon 
Schwenckfeld's  polemic  against  the  "external"  rite:  they  admit  that  the  ex- 
igencies of  debate  betrayed  him  into  ill-balanced  assertions,  but  tliej'  are  likewise 
strong  in  their  insistence  that  according  to  him  the  sacraments  when  rightly 
used  arc  "means  of  grace." 

}  DoUinger,  Die  Rejormation,  1,239  sq.,  declares  that  external  baptism  accord- 
ing to  Schwenckfeld  was  only  an  outer  reminder  and  confession  of  the  inwardly 
received  grace ;  and  that  the  external  Supper  is  only  a  picture  of  the  inward  eat- 
ing. Kurtz  (Kirchetigeschichle,  9.  .•Vufl.,  II,  p.  1.50J  says  Schwenckfeld's  doc- 
trine of  the  Supper  is  mere  symbolism,  a  charge  wliich  the  reformer  times  without 
number  explicitly  denied. 

I  Zwingli's  statements  on  the  cucharistic  controversy  present,  as  is  well  known, 
marked  contrasts.  When  governed  by  polemic  zeal  against  the  Romanists  and 
Lutherans  he  seems  to  deny  tliat  the  Supper  is  in  any  sense  a  means  of  grace.  Of. 
his  Fidci  Ratio,  in  Xiemeyer's  Collcclio  Conjey.'iomim ,  p.  24:  "Credo,  imo  scio 
crania  sacramenta  tam  abes^e  ut  gratia  conferant,  ut  ne  adferant  quidem  aut 
dispensent."  The  positive  thought  he  most  emphasizes  is  that  the  Supper  is 
"nihil  aliud  quam  commemoratio,  qua  ii,  qui  se  Cliristi  morte  et  sanguine  firmiter 
credunt  patri  reconciliatos  esse,  hance  vitalem  mortem  annunciant,  hoc  eet. 
laudant,  pratulantur,  et  pr:edicai!t"  {lie  vera  cl  falsa  Religionc,  Opera,  ed.  Schuler 
and  Schulthcss,  III,  p.  203).  liut  it  must  be  remembered  that  he  at  times 
taught  tliat  Christ  is  truly  present  in  the  Supper,  and  that  his  body  is  truly  eaten 
by  the  believing  heart.     Sea  p.  49. 


34 

in  fact,  so  close  a  resemblance  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  that,  with 
all  allowance  for  essential  differences,  the  term  "means  of  gi-ace" 
may  be  applied  with  almost  as  much  propriety  in  the  one  case  as 
in  the  other.  Schwenckfeld  and  Calvin,  in  carrying  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  Lutheran  moA'ement  the  basal  distinction  between 
Romanism  and  Protestantism,  that  pertaining  to  the  way  in  which 
the  soul's  relation  to  God  is  mediated,*  emphasized  the  possibility 
and  realitj'  of  the  direct  operation  of  God  upon  the  religious  sub- 
ject. They  furthermore  agreed  in  makmg  the  whole  Christ  the 
res  or  materia  of  the  sacrament,  and  in  making  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  a  distinguishing  feature  of  their  doctrine  of  the  "means  of 
grace,"  thus  aiming  to  do  justice  to  the  objective  content  of  the 
sacraments  as  taught  by  Romanist  and  Lutheran  and  the  subjective 
aspects  championed  by  the  Zwinglians.  Above  all,  in  their  spiritual 
view  of  the  whole  process  of  salvation,  in  which  the  sacraments 
conveyed  no  unique  grace  not  otherwise  obtainable,  faith  was  em- 
phasized as  the  indispensable  condition  for  securing  a  dialectic  and 
causal  connection  between  the  outer  transaction  and  the  inner  effect. 
To  be  sure,  Calvin  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  far  more  satisfactory 
because  intimate  nexus  between  the  spiritual  and  the  corporeal, 
the  divine  and  the  human  elements  of  the  sacramental  act,  and 
it  was  especially  his  clear  recognition  of  the  sealing  character 
of  the  ordinance  that  gave  his  views  so  speedy  and  complete  a 
victory  not  only  over  those  of  his  theological  kinsman  Zwingli, 
but  also  over  those  extremists  like  Schwenckfeld  who  belonged  to 
a  more  remotely  related  spiritualistic  school. f 

We  are  bound,  therefore,  to  ascertain  more  exactly  the  nature 
of  Schwenckfeld's  conception  of  faith.  For  it  i-  obvious  that  it 
was  by  this  bridge  that  he  sought  to  span  the  chasm  that  lay  be- 

*  Cf   Baur,  Die  Lehrc  von  dcr  Dreieinigkeit,  III,  254. 

t  Schweiicld'eld  never  attained,  and  from  his  premises,  a.s  will  appear,  never 
could  attain,  the  high  vantage-ground  from  wluch  Calvin  could  regard  the  sacra- 
ments as  seals  of  the  new  covenant.  Lutheran  writers,  indeed,  are  wont  to  say 
that  Calvin  himself  was  not  warranted  by  his  presuppositions  in  taking  so  "high" 
a  view  of  baptism  and  the  eucharist.  See,  e.g.,  Kahnis,  Die  Lehre  vom  Abend- 
maid,  p.  407  sg.,  and  cf.  Schenkel,  I.e.,  I,  429  sq.  The  latter,  however,  admits 
that  Calvin  has  given  the  best  solution  of  the  sacramental  problem  (ibid.,  and  cf. 
p.  XIX).  But  Schwenckfeld,  as  we  shall  find,  was  prevented  by  liis  conception 
of  faith  and  his  theory  of  the  deification  of  the  flesh  of  Christ,  from  securing  any 
adequate  view  either  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  application  of  grace  or  of 
faitli  as  the  instrument  of  salvation. 

At  times,  to  be  sure,  attempts  were  made  to  vindicate  a  scaling  character  for 
the  sacrament-s.  See  the  Catechism  of  the  Schwenckfelder  Werner  in  Arnold, 
Kirchen-  und  Ketzerhistorie  (1740),  Vol.  I,  Th.  II,  B.  XVI,  cap.  XX,  p.  853.  But 
all  such  attempts  really  exceed  the  logical  warrant  of  the  premises  of  the  system. 


35 

tween  his  desire  to  presjrve  the  objective  content  of  the  sacraments 
and  his  determination  to  hold  fast  to  what  he  regarded  as  the 
deepest  essence  of  Protestantism,  the  sole  mediatorship  of  Christ 
operating  du-ectly,  that  is  without  the  use  of  any  creaturely  ob- 
jects, upon  the  believer's  heart.  It  is  only  by  securing  an  adequate 
gi-asp  of  his  doctrine  of  faith  that  we  shall  succeed  in  doing  justice  to 
his  otherwise  altogether  anomalous  position  between  the  Romanists 
and  Lutherans  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Zwinglians  and  Anabaptists 
on  the  other.  Only  so  can  we  realize  how,  in  his  eagerness  to  pre- 
serve the  choicest  treasures  of  the  new  evangelical  faith,  he  took  so 
extreme  a  position  against  Rome  that  he  found  it  impossible,  save 
by  an  occasional  felicitous  inconsistency  of  thought,  to  regard  the 
sacraments  as  anything  more,  in  the  actual  life  of  the  Church,  than 
sjmibols  or  means  of  representiiig  spiritual  realities  to  the  phj'sical 
senses.  Only  so  can  we  understand  the  logic  of  his  oft-repeated 
statement  that  the  external  rites  must  follow,  and  not  precede,  the 
internal  transactions.*  Only  so  can  we  ascertain  both  the  strength 
and  the  weakness  of  his  sacramentarianism  and  estimate  aiight  his 
contribution  to  the  eucharistic  controversy. 

It  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  introduce  that  larger  circle 
of  thought  that  lies  behind  and  ever3'where  colors  the  more  su- 
perficial considerations  thus  far  presented :  to  understand  his  view  of 
faith  we  have  to  examine  the  philosophic  presuppositions  upon 
which  he  based  not  only  his  idea  of  the  purpose  of  the  sacraments 
but  his  whole  conception  of  the  nature  of  redemption.  Concerned 
as  he  was  for  the  rights  of  subjective  religion,  fuiding  as  he  did  in 
the  spiritual  knowledge  of  his  Redeemer  the  only  way  imto  eternal 
life,  how  did  he  conceive  of  the  nexus  of  faith  by  which  the  soul 
is  brought  into  contact  with  the  supernatural  source  of  grace  in 
the  real  or  uiward  sacrament?  By  the  necessity  of  the  cafe  his 
conception  of  faith  is  influenced  by  his  conception  of  Clu-ist,  and 
his  Christology  in  turn  is  inseparably  linked  with  his  doctrine  of 
the  Supper.  For  him,  as  for  all  the  participants  in  the  eucharistic 
controversy,  there  were  in  reality  two  clo.sely  related  and  decisive 
questions:  (1)  What  is  the  mode  of  the  Lord's  presence  in  the 
Supper?  and  (2)  What  benefits  does  faith  receive  through  or,  as 
Schwenckfeld  would  prefer  to  say,  in  the  u.se  of  the  sacrament?! 

*  S^ce.g.,  A  513c,  B  COlb. 

t  It  was  natural  for  the  editor(s)  of  the  fol.  D  to  dose  the  volume  with 
Schwenckfeld's  two  doctrinal  summaries,  often  separately  published,  Ein  Kurzes 
Summarium  von  C.  Schwenckjdds  Ghubcn  und  Bckcnntnis  ion  Chrislo  dem  Sohiie 
OoUes  and  his  Kurzrs  Bckcnntnis  rom  HI.  Sacrament  dcs  Hcrrn  Christi  Nachtmah. 
On  the  necessary  and  close  connection  between  the  Supper  and  the  nature  of 


3G 

The  philosophic  dualism  underlj-ing  Schwcnckfeld's  system  and 
revealing  itself  in  his  Chiistology  posits  a  twofold  activity  on  the 
part  of  God,  that  of  creation  and  that  of  regeneration.*  The  sharp- 
est distinction  is  preserved  between  nature  and  grace.  "The 
work  of  creation  brings  with  it  the  presence  of  the  power,  might  and 
strength  of  God,  with  which  God  creates,  fills  and  preserves  all 

things  through  his  right  hand,  tlu-ough  his  Word  Christ 

Such  presence  is  honorable  to  God,  shows  his  majesty,  power, 
knowledge  and  government,  that  he  is  a  Lord  of  all  things,  but  it 
is  not  specially  comforting  or  salutary  to  the  creatures."!  In 
contrast  with  this  creative  actiAit}",  which  reveals  only  the  pres- 
ence of  power,  is  the  regenerating  or  gracious  activity  by  which 
man  becomes  a  partaker  of  the  divine  essence :  ' '  the  other  work  of 
God  is  the  work  of  recreation,  which  God  has  exercised  especially 
in  the  sphere  of  human  life  tlirough  his  right  hand,  that  is  through 
Clirist,  upon  the  basis  of  the  first  work,  and  which  he  still  exercises 
and  dispenses  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  it  brings  with  itself  proesenliam 
graticv  (that  is  the  presence  of  grace)  with  which  God  is  nigh  unto 
all  those  who  call  upon  him  ....  and  through  which  God's  right 
hand  in  the  Holy  Spirit  cleanses,  remakes  and  regenerates  man, 
in  order  that  God  may  live  and  abide  in  him,  being  apprehended 
by  faith,  and  that  man  may  become  a  partaker  of  his  divine  nature 
and  essence;  2  Pet.  1,  Heb.  3.  Such  presence  is  honorable  to  God, 
shows  his  mercj',  friendlmess  and  great  love,  and  is  salutary  to  the 
■creature,  a  powerful  comfort  unto  eternal  life. "J  Redemption  is 
in  fact  nothing  but  a  deliverance  both  from  the  domiuion  of  sin 
and — ^what  is  reallj'  fundamental — from  the  very  estate  of  crea- 
turehood.§  But  how,  then,  must  he  be  constituted  who  is  to  effect 
so  genuinely  physical  or  substantial  a  transformation  as  that  re- 
quired to  make  the  sinful  creature  a  participant  in  the  divuie  life 
and  essence?    If  the  Mediator  is  to  succeed  in  bringing  man  into 

Christ's  person,  cf.  also  T)  30b,  82d,  A  727  sqq.  and  the  many  passages  in  which 
he  shows  the  rel.itions  of  these  views  in  the  erroneous  teachings  of  liis  opponents. 

*  Baur  {Lehre  ron  der  Drcieinigfceit) ,  Domer  (Lclirc  von  der  Person  Christi), 
Ha}in  (Sentcntia)  and  Erbkara  {Gcschichte  der  prot.  Sikten)  have  clearly  appre- 
hended and  more  or  less  fully  discussed  tlie  nature  and  importance  of  this  far- 
reaching  distinction.  The  reader  is  referred  to  these  works  for  a  more  adequate 
treatment  than  we  can  here  give  of  tliis  aspect  of  tlie  subject. 

t  See  the  wliole  section  in  Scndbriej  VI,  entitled  ]'on  zwcicrlci  Wrrh  und  Gegen- 
u-arligkeit  Gottes  (C  pp.  104-1 OG). 

t  Ibid.,  p.  105. 

§  It  is  Ilahn's  special  merit  to  have  established  this  point.  See  his  disserta- 
tion, pp.  8,  21,  49  n.  3,  51  sgq.  Ilahn,  however,  underestimates  the  services  ren- 
dered by  iJonicr  and  Baur  in  proving  the  central  importance  of  the  distinction 
between  "Sehopfung"  and  "Wiederschopfung."  Cf.  Baur,  Theol.  Jahrb., 
1848,  pp.  512,  524,  et  passim. 


87 

harmony  with  God,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  creature  and  Ci-eator 
are  furtlier  removed  from  each  other  than  heaven  and  earth, 
wherein  Hcs  the  capacity  of  tiie  God-man  to  accompHsh  this  unique 
task?  Obviously  the  traditional  Anselmic  view  of  the  personal 
union  between  God  and  man  in  Jesus  Clirist  is  not  adequate  to  the 
terms  of  Schwenckfeld's  problem.  For  if,  as  we  are  told,  sin  per- 
tains to  the  very  status  of  creaturehood,  it  is  of  course  essential 
that  the  Saviour  should  in  no  sense  be  a  creature — not  even, 
Schwenckfeld  insists,  according  to  his  human  nature.*  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  equally  necessary  that  the  Saviour  should  be  truly 
man,  that  he  should  take  upon  himself  the  essence  of  our  himian 
nature.  How,  then,  are  the  two  requirements — that  of  perfect 
deity  and  that  of  perfect  humanity  apart  from  all  creaturehood — 
to  be  realized  in  a  single  and  unitary  personality? 

Schwenckfeld's  answer  is  highly  ingenious,  but  necessarily  unsat- 
isfactory; the  primary  dualism  of  his  system,  the  very  terms  in 
which  the  problem  is  stated,  preclude  any  solution.  Clirist,  we 
are  told,  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  reason  of  this 
supernatural  generation  he  is  said  to  belong  to  the  order  not  of 
"created"  but  of  "begotten"  or  "re-created"  beings.f  He  is 
therefore  truly  divine,  the  Son  of  God,  according  to  the  very  essence 
of  his  being.  But  he  was  at  the  same  time  born  of  the  "\' irgin 
Mary ; J  from  her  he  received  his  material,  substantial  body.  §     He  is, 

*  The  passages  against  the  "Creaturisten" — those  who  held  that  the  word 
"creature"  is  apphcable  to  Christ  in  an_v  sense  whatsoever — are  innumerable. 
Schwenckfeld's  contention,  when  once  his  philosophic  dualism  was  taken  seriously, 
had  to  influence  his  whole  conception  of  the  person  of  Christ  and  of  the  way  of 
salvation.     See,  e.g.,  C  806b,  S09d,  S14a,  S23c. 

t  "Wicderschopfung,"  "Zeugen,"  "regeneratio"  and  "filiatio"  are  all 
practically  synonymous.  They  denote  a  supernatural  communication  of  grace, 
in  other  words  of  the  divine  essence  itself,  and  may  therefore  be  predicated  of  the 
sinless  Chrisfs  humanity  as  well  as  of  the  redeemed.  It  is  needless  to  add  that 
these  terms  have  no  reference  to  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  as  the  Second 
Person  of  the  Trinity:  the  point  of  contact  between  the  Redeemer  and  his  people 
is  to  be  sought  not  in  the  Mediator'.*  divinity  but  in  his  non-crcaturely  humanity. 
We  have  here  a  characteristic  specimen  of  Schwenckfeld's  attempt  to  tlieologize 
on  a  strictly  biblical  basis;  but  into  the  familiar  words  of  Scripture  an  entirely 
new  content  is  poured. 

J  More  accurately— though  tlie  preposition  "aus"  is  frequent  enough — Christ 
was  born  "in  her  and  of  her,  '  but  "out  of  God"  (B  2Slc,  and  in  the  margin). 

§  It  is  not  the  whole  truth,  therefore,  when  Hodge  (Sy.'!l.  TlicoL,  I,  82)  declares: 
"His  body  and  soul  were  formed  out  of  the  substance  of  God, ' '  and  that,  according 
to  Schwenckfeld,  Christ  did  not  have  "any  material  body  or  blood."  Schwenck- 
feld had  no  synipatliy  with  the  views  of  Valentinus  or  Melcliior  Hoffmann 
(see  D  426,  B  lC3d,  A  291,  D  79d).  He  tauglit  that  Clirist  did  have  a  real,  mater- 
ial body  in  his  humiliation,  and  that  he  even  now,  in  his  glorified  or  "deified" 
humanity,  has  flesh  and  bones.  Cf.  D  125d:  "Ich  glaube  und  bekcnne  dass 
Christ  us  Jesus  auch  noch  hcute  und  cwig  ein  wahrer,  ganzer  Menscli  mit  Leib 


38 

therefore,  God  and  man  in  one.  But  -why  is  he  not  then  a  creature? 
The  response  is  a  double  one :  first,  that  the  terra  ' '  creature ' '  denotes 
merel)'  origin,  whereas  "man"  or  "  humanity'"  or  "  flesh"  denotes  es- 
sence,* and  secondly,  that  our  Lord  besides  having  a  divme  Father 
had  also  a  specially  sanctified  mother,  a  virgin  upon  whom  had  been 
bestowed  the  gift — the  supernatural,  the  characteristically  spiritual- 
substantial  gift — of  faith. t  But,  as  Dorner  has  pointed  out, J  this 
is  simply  to  transfer  the  problem  from  the  constitution  of  Clirist 
to  that  of  his  mother.  The  solution  cannot  do  full  justice  to  his 
humanity. §  He  is,  after  all,  sui  generis  not  simply  as  to  his  per- 
sonality as  a  whole,  but  even  according  to  his  human  nature 
alone.  His  flesh  has  a  different  origin  and  different  capacities 
from  our  own.     His  flesh  from  the  first  is  what,  according  to 

Fleisch,  Blut  und  Gebein  ist  in  liimnilisclier  Ivlarlieit  in  einem  unbegreiflichen 
Lichte  und  W'esen."  Rather  is  it  tlie  case,  then,  that  Clirist  had  a  species  of 
double  corporeity — one  bodih-  principle  which  owed  its  capacity  for  glorification 
and  progressive  "deification"  to  the  fact  that  it  was  essentially  divine,  and  a 
second  bodily  principle  which  was  essentially  human,  derived  from  the  earthly 
elements  of  his  mother's  constitution.  Cf.  D  1,  21,  98,  49S,  and  the  many  pas- 
sages that  set  forth  the  nature  of  the  "Gottwerdung"  of  the  humanity. 

*  Creature  is  not  "ein  Wort  oder  eigentliclier  Xaraen  des  Selbstandes  oder  der 
Natur  des  Menschen  ....  so  es  doch  \-iel  mehr  ein  Zunamen  ist,  dadurch 
allein  des  Menschen  Herkommen  angezeigt  und  die  Ankunft  des  alten  Menschen 
wird  bedeutet"  (D  125b).  And  in  the  margin:  "Crcatura  non  est  nomen  sub- 
Btantire  rei,  sed  appellatio  rei  accidens,  sicut  nati\ntas,  sicut  filiatio,  generatio, 
etc.  Ein  Mensch  sein  sagt  von  einem  AVesen;  Creatur  vom  Herkommen  des 
AVesens."  At  times,  however,  Schwenckfeld  seems  to  depart  from  tlie  path  of 
strict  consistency.  Thus  in  D  254  he  says:  "Nach  aller  Schrift  Zeugnis  werden 
allein  zweierlei  Wesen  aUer  Dinge  befunden:  ein  gottlich  und  himmlisch,  welches 
allein  Gott  und  scinem  Sohne  Christus  natiirlich  zustcht,  und  wem  er  es  aus 
Gnaden  will  gonnen;  das  andere  creaturlich  und  irdisch,  in  welches  Wesen  sich 
auch  Christus,  der  Sohn  Gottes,  seiner  Exanition  nach  eine  Zeitlang  um  unseres 
Heiles  willen  begeben,  da  er  Knechtsgestalt  an  sich  hat  genommen."  But  such 
a  vacillation,  quite  exceptional  in  anj-  event,  is  after  all  more  apparent  than  real: 
the  distinction  between  man  as  to  his  essence  and  man  as  to  his  origin  may  even 
here  be  made.  It  was  the  onl}-  logical  position  for  Schwenckfeld  to  take,  if  he 
really  meant  to  attach  any  importance  to  his  singular  idea  of  the  deification  of 
the  ficsh  of  Christ. 

t  For  Schwenckfeld's  peculiar  conception  of  faith,  seep.  09  sqq.  For  the  present 
the  remark  must  suffice,  that  the  effects  attributed  to  the  faith  of  tlie  Virgin 
Mar>-  have  a  striking  analogue  in  the  application  of  the  same  principle  in  the 
sacraments:  faith  is  the  nexus  between  God  and  the  human  personality  receiWng 
the  supernatural  grace.  It  is  precisely  here,  as  we  shall  find,  tliat  Schwenckfeld's 
"mysticism"  reveals  its  distinctive  features  most  plainly. 

X  Geschichte  der  prot.  Thcologie,  p.  ISl. 

I  Cf.  Baur,  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1S4S,  p.  520:  "Da  er  seinem  Ursprung  und  Wesen 
nach  etwas  gunz  anders  ist  als  alle  andern  Menschen,  so  ist,  was  er  Menschliches 
au  sich  hat,  nur  ein  verscliwindendes  Accidens,  das  ihm  audi  nur  den  Schein 
eines  wahren  und  wirklicheu  Menschen  giebt.  Eine  wahre  Homousie  des  Men- 
schen Christus  mit  andern  Menschen  konnte  Schwenckfeld  nicli  behuupten." 


39 

Schwenckfeld's  "mystic"  phraseology,  ours  may  become  after 
"faith"  has  borne  its  perfect  fruit— an  essentially  supernatural 
and  spiritualized  flesh.  There  are,  in  fact,  two  kinds  of  flesh  in  the 
sphere  of  human  life:  that  of  sin,  inherited  from  Adam,  and  that, 
resembling  the  former  but  dominated  by  grace,  that  is  by  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  divine  essence  itself,  which  is  a  supernatural  generation. 
The  former  in  the  case  of  every  believer  is  "re-created"  into  the 
latter.  In  Christ  alone,  since  the  fall  of  Adam,  has  there  been  a 
true  humanity  free  from  the  principle  of  sin.* 

The  difficulty  Ls  only  increased  by  the  attempt  to  bring  the  unique 
character  of  the  Sa\-iour's  humanity  into  causal  connection  with 
his  mediatorial  work  in  behalf  of  the  race.  For  it  is  specifically 
in  the  flesh  of  Clnist  that  we  must  find  his  basal  quahfication  to 
be  our  Redeemer :  the  entire  scheme  of  salvation  is  built  upon  the 
principle  of  the  once  progressive,  but  now  completely  accomplished 
deification  of  the  flesh  of  Christ. 

It  is  difficult  to  present  this  peculiarity  of  Schwenckfeld's  system 
in  any  other  than  his  o^ti  words.  His  language  places  in  boldest 
juxtaposition  the  elements  of  what  in  reality  is  an  irreconcilable 
dualism.  The  Saviour  is  truly  God  and  truly  man,  and  yet  his 
humanity  has  become  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term  divine. 
This  is  the  burden  of  countless  cliristological  utterances;  the 
author's  language  remains  rigidly  consistent  in  the  assertion  of 
this  absolute  inconsistency.  We  must  be  content  to  let  his 
thinking  rest  in  a  formula  which  by  every  reasonable  interpre- 
tation simply  presents  a  contradictio  in  adjecto.  The  practical 
bearings  of  this  peculiar  theory  upon  the  two  questions  with  which 
we  still  have  to  deal,  the  mode  of  Christ's  presence  m  the  Supper, 
and  the  benefits  which  faith  derives  from  this  sacrament,  are  so 
important  that  we  cannot  forbear  bringing  the  matter  somewhat 
more  sharply  to  view.  The  following  deliverance  is  typical: 
"When  I  say  that  Christ's  flesh  is  deified,  that  his  flesh  or  the  man 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  by  his  glorification,  ascension  and  primogaiitura 
from  the  dead  has  become  God  and  a  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth, 
I  mean  nothing  else  than  that  the  human  nature  in  Christ  has  be- 
come altogether  similar  to  the  divine  nature  in  glory.     I  do  not  mean 

*  It  is  obvious  that  Schwenckfeld's  fantastic  distinction  between  the  essence 
and  the  accidental  or  creaturely  origin  of  our  nature  is  due  simply  to  his  errone- 
ous conception  of  sin  as  something  inherent  in  our  very  constitution  as  creatures. 
Cf.  D,  p.  107:  '  'Ja  ob  auch  Adam  nie  gefaJlen  ware,  so  wiiren  deniioch  seine  Nach- 
komnilingen  von  Natur,  und  alios  was  aus  ihm  den  Ursprung  hat,  ohne  Christum 
und  seine  Gnade  nichts  denn  Creaturen  und  natiirliche  Menschen  gebheben." 


40 

that  the  humanity  in  Christ  is  destroyed  nor  made  into  the  God- 
head (noch  ziir  Gottheit  warden),  but  that  the  man  in  Christ  can 
now  do  all  that  God  can,  and  that  he  in  Christ's  person,  tmited 
with  the  Word,  is  to  be  invoked,  M'orshiped,  and  divinely  honored 
as  much  as  God — one  Christ,  one  Son  of  God,  who  is  our  Lord  and 
God  absolutely."*  In  another  passage,  in  discussing  the  words 
Gottwerdung  and  Vergotlung,  he  cites  the  fathers  in  his  support: 
"Thus  the  fathers  mean  by  the  deification  of  the  flesh  of  Christ, 
that  it  is  poured  through,  shot  through,  irradiated  and  glorified  f 
with  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit  in  all  divine  fuhiess — spiritu  repleta 
divina,  says  Ambrose,  that  it  is  completely  filled  ^\ith  the  Holj'  Spirit 
and  the  divine  essence  and  life;  and  as  Cj'ril  ^Tites  concerning  the 
sixth  chapter  of  Jolm,  that  not  onlj'  the  divine  nature  in  Christ  but 
also  the  human  regenerates,  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  has  now  assumed 
the  whole  reality  of  the  Word  and  attained  unto  the  power  of  the 
divine  essence;  indeed,  that  his  whole  body  has  been  filled  with  the 
\'i\nfying  power  of  the  Spirit;  /laec  iUe.  This  we  also  call  deification 
and  becommg  God,  that  God  in  Christ,  albeit  in  midimmished 
human  nature,  is  all  in  all,  just  as  he  will  finally  become  all  in  all 
in  every  Christian. "J  From  this  point  of  view  he  compares  the 
Lutheran  preachers  with  the  Arians :  as  the  latter  denied  the  deity 
of  Clirist  according  to  the  nature  of  the  Word,  so  the  former  deny 
his  divine  glory  accordmg  to  the  nature  of  his  flesh.  § 

The  above  citations  clearly  reveal  an  apologetic  interest  in  behalf 
of  the  perfect  humanity  of  the  Redeemer.  All,  therefore,  who  repre- 
sent Schwenckfeld  as  teaching  a  conversion  or  transmutation  of 
the  flesh  of  Jesus  into  the  substance  of  the  Godhead  compromise 
his  eccentricities  with  their  o-rni  conceptions  of  what  logic  would 
have  required  him  to  say.|l     Rather  are  we  to  think  of  this  change 

*  D  514d.  The  subject  is  discussed  -with  wearisome  prolixity  in  the  tripartite 
Confession  und  Erkliirung  von  der  Erkenntnis  Chrisli  und  seiner  gottlichen  Herrlich- 
kcit,  in  D,  pp.  91-319,  as  well  as  in  many  of  the  lesser  treatises  of  that  volume,  and 
in  numberless  letters  in  the  other  folios.  No  other  point  in  the  whole  range  of 
controversial  discussion  elicited  from  Schwenckfeld  so  many  apologetic  and 
polemic  WTitings;  even  liis  peculiar  views  of  the  Supper  could  not  be  explained 
without  extensive  references  to  this  underlying  doctrine. 

t  The  German  compounds  arc  scarcely  translatable:  "mit  Gott  und  dem 
heiligen  Geiste  in  aller  gottlichen  Tulle  ist  durchgosscn,  durchfeuert,  durchglanzet 
und  verkliiret." 

jrySTc.  §C100Sa. 

Il'lnus  Mee,  Dogmcnocschichtc,  II,  p.  41,  says:  "die  menschliche  Natur  sei 
in  die  gotthche  umgewaudclt  worden."  Kurtz,  I.e.,  p.  150,  is  ambiguous:  "so 
dass  im  Stande  der  Erhohung  seine  gbttliche  und  menschliche  Natur  voUkommen 
in  eins  verschmolzon  sind."  Schwenckfeld  is  careful  never  to  use  the  verbs 
"umwandeln"  or  "verwandcln"  or  their  derivatives,  but  only  "wandcln"  or 


41 

as  a  gradual  process,  as  the  orgajiic  development  of  the  essentially 
di\ane  principle  implanted  in  his  humanity  from  the  moment  he 
was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  author  is  fond  of  present- 
ing this  Gottu'crdung  of  Jesus  as  the  counterpart  of  the  Mensch- 
werdiing  of  God.* 

In  this  progressive  deification  of  the  humanity  of  Christ  there  are, 
moreover,  two  clearly  marked  stages:  much  is  made  of  the  difTer- 
ences  existing  between  the  estate  of  the  Saviour's  humiliation  and 
that  of  his  exaltation. f  By  pressing  this  distinction  and  yet 
strongly  holding  to  the  unity  of  Christ's  person,  Schwenckfeld  seeks 
to  break  the  force  of  the  objection  that  his  view  of  the  origin  of 
Christ's  flesh  does  mjustice  to  the  Redeemer's  humanitj',  and  that 
his  view  of  Christ's  passion  does  injustice  to  the  Redeemer's 
divinity.  For  it  must  be  remembered  that  no  one  was  more  con- 
cerned than  he  was  to  maintain  the  unit}'  of  Clirist's  person.  Even 
Luther's  scholastic  makeshift  of  the  communicatio  idiomatuyyi 
did  not  secm-e  a  sufRcientlj*  intimate  union  of  the  two  natures. 
Schwenckfeld  wished  to  have  every  redemptive  act  referred  to  the 
single  divine-human  personality  and  never  to  either  of  the  two 
distinct  natures. J  But  how  can  the  prime  necessity  vmderl5'ing 
Schwenckfeld's  desire  to  haA'e  a  real  and  essential  union  of  God  and 


an  equivalent;  and  in  spite  of  all  emphasis  upon  the  oneness  of  Christ's  person 
there  is  no  fusion  of  the  two  natures.  To  be  sure,  some  of  the  figurative  terms 
emploj-ed  might  fairly  be  interpreted  in  that  way,  but  such  descriptions  must  be 
read  in  the  light  of  such  explicit  negations  as,  the  foUowing  (D  125d):  "Ich  sage 
nochmals,  dass  ich's  nicht  also  halte  als  ob  die  Menschheit  Christi  sei  zur  Gottheit 
worden,  oder  in  die  Gottheit  sei  verwandelt,  wie  mir  etlicheunbiUig  zulegen  .... 
(Ich)  glaube  und  bekenne  .  .  .  .  es  ist  seine  Menschheit  geandert  oder  gewandelt 
nicht  verliehret,  nocli  verzeliret,  sondern  gewandelt  spreche  ich,  durch  die  himm- 
lische  Gloria  gebessert  und  mit  gottlichem  Reichtum  gemehret. " 

*  See  the  treatise,  Dass  Chrislus  audi  ntich  seincm  Menschen  der  naturliche 
wahre  Sohn  Gottes  sei,  p.  F  iiii;  of.  B,pp.  132  sqg.,  Scndbricf  XIII,  Von  der  Mensch- 
werdung  dcs  Worts  und  Gottwerdung  des  Menschen  in  Christo. 

t  Sometimes  three  stages  are  enumerated.  Cf.  e.g.,  A  712a,  where — quite  in 
the  style  of  liis  allegorical  exegesis — the  forecourt,  the  hoh-  place,  and  the  holy 
of  holies  in  the  Jewisli  tabernacle  are  made  to  symbolize  respectively  (1)  the  in- 
carnation, passion  and  death  of  Christ,  (2)  his  resurrection,  and  (3)  his  ascension 
to  heaven  and  session  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  I'su.-illy,  however,  the  last  two 
constitute  a  single  idea,  the  second  and  final  stage  in  the  glorification.  Cf.  also 
D,  pp.  523-531,  Summarium  von  zwcicrlci  Standr,  Amt  und  Erkennitng  Christi. 

t  Cf.  D,p.  4S0  sqq.,  Von  der  gotllichen  Kindschajt  und  Hcrrlichkeit  dcs  ganzen 
Sohnes  Gotles;  ibid.,  531-551,  Drei  chri.itliche  Sendhrieje  von  der  Erkenrdnis 
Christi  beidc  im  Lei  'm  und  in  seiner  gottlirhen  H errlichkeit ;  and  the  treatise,  not 
in  the  folios,  Von  der  Ganz)ieit  Christi  bcide  im  Leiden  und  in  seiner  H errlichkeit . 
Hence  the  insistence  that  Christ  should  be  worshiped  even  according  to  his 
human  nature.     See  the  treatise.  Von  der  Anbetung  Christi. 


42 

man  in  the  Redeemer  be  fulfilled?  If  the  unity  of  Clu-ist's  person 
is  to  be  preserved — and  it  was  from  this  point  of  view  and  not  from 
the  duality  of  natures  that  Schwcnckfeld  viewed  the  problem— 
the  only  possible  solution  was  one  which  could  emphasize  the  close- 
ness of  the  union  between  the  two  natures  only  in  proportion  as 
time  was  gained  for  this  progressive  development  by  magnifymg 
the  difference  between  the  fii'st  and  the  final  stages  in  the  union 
between  the  Word  and  the  flesh;  that  is,  in  proportion  as  the  incarna- 
tion is  conceived  merely  as  the  initial  stage  in  a  process  that  in- 
creasingly deprives  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  in  spite  of  Schwenck- 
feld's  protest,  of  what  in  the  judgment  of  the  historic  Church 
constitutes  its  characteristic  attributes,  till  in  the  last  stage  the 
very  flesh  of  Clu-ist  has  a  glory  indistinguishable  from  that  of  the 
Godhead  itself.  After  ah,  therefore,  it  is  not  real  and  essential 
divinity  that  becomes  mcarnate  m  the  historic  Christ:  it  is  rather, 
m  the  first  instance,  only  the  germinal  prmciple  of  divinity  implanted 
in  a  human  (but  non-creaturely)  natm-e  *  Nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
can  the  deification  of  the  entire  God-man,  including  his  humanity,  be 
taken  strictly;  for  in  reality  it  presupposes  that  the  flesh  of  Christ 
loses  its  distinctive  properties  and  becomes  essentially  spiritual. f 
It  is,  therefore,  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  some  of  the  content  of  the 
terms  "flesh"  and  "divinity"  that  Schwenckfeld  can  vindicate 
his  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  "glory"  assumed  by  the  humanity 
of  the  Redeemer  after  his  resurrection  and  ascension.  A  single 
passage  may  serve  to  give  the  tenor  of  many.  "I  repeat,  the 
Word  became  flesh  in  order  that  it  might  conform  and  render 
similar  to  itself  the  flesh  which  it  received  into  a  union  with  itself, 
in  all  divine  glory,  power,  might,  and  capacity.  But  this  did  not 
happen  suddenly,  all  at  once,  at  the  moment  of  the  physical  and 
temporal  union,  which  afterward  was  destroyed  by  death,  to  be 
followed,  however,  by  a  much  more  glorious  and  better  imion: 
namely,  an  entirelj'  new,  enduring,  and  altogether  divine  union 
and  glorification  which  is  to  last  to  all  eternity.  Only  then  will  the 
flesh,  as  Jerome  -WTites  in  connection  with  Phil.  2,  be  completely 
united  and  deified,  anointed  through  and  through  (durchsalbet) , 
and  glorified  by  its  union  with  God  the  Word  in  the  heavenly  es- 
sence and  its  transfer  {Versetzung)  into  the  glory  and  nature  of  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead;  only  then  mdecdwill  the  fle>h  be  perfectly 
glorious,  divuie,  and   spiritual,  that  is  equal  to  God  in  honor, 

*  See  Schultz,  Die  GoUheit  Chrisli,  p.  2S0  sq.,  for  a  brief  statement  of  the  strik- 
ing similarity  between  Sehwentkfeld's  Christology  and  that  of  the  later  Kenoticista. 
t  Cf .  Bavir  Die  Lehre  von  der  Dreieinigkeii,  p.  242  sq. 


43 

power,  and  might;  this  I  call  the  deification  of  the  man  Clu-ist  or 
his  becoming  like  unto  God,  or  his  perfect  glorification."*  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  moreover,  that  the  reformer's  zeal  in  this  mat- 
ter led  him  to  put  the  centre  of  gravity  of  his  whole  system  in  the 
work  not  of  the  earthly  but  of  the  heavenly  Christ. f  The  summum 
honum,  the  indispensable  condition  of  salvation,  is  the  spuitual 
knowledge  of  the  God-man,  the  "King  of  grace,"  first  in  his 
estate  of  humiliation  and  then,  and  chiefly,  in  his  estate  of  exalta- 
tion.J 

The  suggestiveness  and  worth  of  some  of  these  cluistological 
principles  it  would  be  idle  to  deny.§  The  strong  insistence  upon 
the  oneness  of  the  Redeemer's  person,  against  the  Nestorianizing 
tendencies  of  the  Zwinglians  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  unsatis- 
factory unity  based  upon  a  community  of  attributes  taught  by 
the  Lutherans  on  the  other,  is  the  dictate  of  a  somid  and  safe  in- 
stinct. But  his  o^Mi  construction  of  the  biblical  data  was  too 
much  the  product  of  a  mind  which,  in  spite  of  its  speculative  acute- 
ness  and  its  marked  taste  for  systematic  thinking,  lacked  both  the 
logical  vigor  and  the  ethical  insight  necessary  to  trace  his  dualistic 
principles  to  their  last  consequences.  Governed  primarily  bj'  the 
practical  considerations  of  religious  reform,  rather  than  by  the 
speculative  interests  of  the  scientific  theologian;  at  times  naively 
faitliful  to  the  letter  of  Scripture,  but  more  frequently  yielding  to 
the  charms  of  a  spiritualistic  interpretation,  he  was  capable  of  the 
boldest  conceivable  antagonisms  of  thought  and  language:  Christ 

*  D  513,  514.  Cf.  the  whole  Sendhrief,  Von  seinen  zuei  Katuren,  vomehmlich 
«on  der  Glorie  des  Fleisches  Christi.  Ir  this  doctrine  of  the  "Verklarung"  and 
"Vergottung"  of  the  Saviour's  humanity  lies  the  reason  for  the  designation  so 
often  applied  to  the  Schwenckfc-lders,  in  accordance  with  their  founder's  wish, 
"the  Confessors  of  the  Glory  of  Clirist. " 

t  But  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose,  as  is  often  done,  that  he  denied  the  fact  or 
the  need  of  an  objective  atonement.  Nor  is  such  an  extreme  statement  as  that 
of  Hodge  justified:  "Vt'itli  him,  as  with  mystics  generally,  the  ideas  of  guilt  and 
expiation  were  ignored"  (Syst.  TheoL,  I,  83).  In  view  of  the  many  special 
treatises  written  by  him  on  the  passion  and  death  of  Christ,  tlie  most  that  can 
be  said — and  this  must  not  be  overlooked,  for  it  is  a  cliaracteristic  defect — is 
that  "guilt  and  expiation,"  regardless  of  the  amount  of  space  devoted  to  them, 
have  no  logical  relation  to  liis  peculiar  conception  of  the  atonement.  Tiie  ideas 
were  not  ignored;  they  were  niisappreliended.  Tliey  were  biblical  ideas  and 
were  as  sucli  discussed;  but  tliey  were,  as  will  presently  appear,  reall}-  foreign 
to  the  nature  of  his  conception  of  salvation. 

t  C  475d:  "Wer  Cliristum  in  priori  statu  nicht  kennt,  wie  kann  er  ad  pos- 
terioTem  so  l^ald  aspiriren?" 

§  Baur,  Dorner,  Erbkam,  Schenkel,  and  especially  Hahn  have  made  it  plain 
that  his  speculations  about  the  person  of  Clirist  by  no  means  merit  the  sum- 
mary condemnation  visited  upon  tliem  by  such  a  writer  as  Planck. 


44 

retains  his  true  humanity,  yet  his  very  flesh  is  deified.  "Christ 
Jesus,  I  say  again,  with  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  has  indeed  two 
natures;  he  is  indivisibly  God  and  man.  But  these  two  natures 
exist  in  a  divine,  eternal  life  and  essence,  so  that  the  life  and  es- 
sence of  this  man,  now,  after  his  glorification,  ascension  to  heaven 
and  elevation  over  all  the  heavens,  is  not  to  be  viewed  and  judged 
as  the  life  and  essence  of  a  man  with  a  natural  soul* — as  human 
reason  judges  and  can  never  come  to  a  higher  knowledge — but  it 
is  to  be  regarded  as  the  divine  life  and  essence,  that  of  God,  existing 
in  and  like  unto  God."t 

But  our  purpose  in  thus  setting  forth  the  salient  features 
of  Schwenckfeld's  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  was  none  other, 
it  will  be  remembered,  than  that  of  securing  a  knowledge  of  the 
principles  that  underlay  the  reformer's  answer  to  the  question 
concernmg  the  mode  of  the  Lord's  presence  in  the  Holy  Supper. 
To  this  problem  we  now  return. 

There  is  much  in  the  Cliristology  of  Schwenckfeld  which  logically 
would  have  brought  him  into  closest  sympathy  with  Luther's  doc- 
trine of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body.|  For  however  sharply  the 
thought  is  emphasized  that  the  flesh  of  Clirist  has  been  deified,  it 
is  to  be  remembered  that  an  equal  stress  is  laid  upon  the  confess- 
edly scriptural  fact  that  the  Redeemer  retains  his  true  humanity 
after  his  resm-rection  and  exaltation.  §  The  apparent  approxi- 
mation to  Luther's  peculiar  view  becomes  even  more  deceptive 
when  we  consider  how  Schwenckfeld  mterprets  the  term  "the 


*  "eines  seelhaftigen  natiirlichen  Mensehen." 

t  D  844  sq.  From  the  brief  account  we  have  here  given  of  Schwenckfeld's 
Christolog)'  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  he  lias  been  charged  with  such  diverse 
heresies  as  Docctism  and  Ebionitisra,  Neetorianism  and  Eutychianism,  and,  by 
modern  -writers,  with  Apollinarianisra  and  Kenosis.  The  verdict  depends  upon 
what  class  of  passage*  the  critic  is  pleased  to  lay  chief  emphasis.  Thus  the 
question  of  his  Eutychianism  has  been  variously  answered.  Hahn  (p.  76)  and 
Erbkam  (Gcscluchtc  d.  prot.  ,Scktcn,  p.  4G7)  deny  the  charge.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered, too,  that  Schwenckfeld  in  numberless  places  repudiated  the  hercs)-.  But 
this  is  not  conclusive.  Dorner  and  Baur,  accordingly,  take  mediating  views, 
denying  that  his  teaching  is  to  be  placed  on  one  and  the  same  level  with  historic 
Eutychianism,  )-et  admitting  the  presence  of  the  essential  features  of  this  error. 
It  is  Baur  wlio  (Theol.  Jahrb.,  1S4S,  pp.  527f.)  calls  attention  to  the  similarity 
between  Schwenckfeld  and  ApoUinaris.  Dorner,  in  both  of  the  works  cited,  seeks 
to  do  justice  to  the  disparate  and  indeed  irreconcilable  elements  of  the  problem 
as  stated  by  Schwenckfeld,  and  gives  on  the  whole  the  most  penetrating  and  just 
criticism. 

t  Cf.  DoUinger,  Die  Rcjonnalion,  I,  241  sq. 

5  The  passages  already  cited  -n-ill  have  made  this  abundantly  clear. 


45 

right  hand  of  God"  as  signifymg  Christ  himself.*  For  if  -we 
bear  in  mind  how  strongly  the  reformer  insisted  upon  preserving 
the  unity  of  the  Redeemer's  person  and  the  glorification  of  his 
humanity,  we  might  naturally  expect  to  find  the  strictly  diA-ine 
attribute  of  omnipresence  ascribed  to  the  very  flesh  of  the  Saviour. 
And  indeed  precisely  this  step  is  taken.  The  logical  consequence 
of  this  fact,  however,  is  explicitly  denied.  Christ  in  his  undivided 
and  inseparable  divine-human  personality  is  everj'where  present  as 
the  "right  hand  of  God";  but  for  that  very  reason  he  is  above  all 
considerations  of  place. f  Heaven,  therefore,  the  abode  of  Christ, 
is  no  locality — no  "rdumJicher  Ort,"  no  "locus  corporaJis."  Christ 
is  in  heaven,  but  is  not  circumscribed.  "Therefore  we  camiot  by 
the  aforesaid  text  [Matt.  xiv.  26]  detract  in  any  way  from  the 
glory  of  the  flesh  of  Christ  and  his  spiritual  nature  and  essence,  nor 
for  that  reason  confine  Christ  to  a  spatial  place,  who  to-daj' 
reigns  in  all  divine  majesty,  and  needs  no  spatial  place  at  all  but 
is  exalted  over  all  temporal  places  and  conditions  into  God  and 
glorified,  just  as  in  the  resurrection  he  easily  penetrated  every  place 
with  his  body.  "$ 

In  spite,  therefore,  of  the  deification  of  Clii'ist's  flesh  and  the  inti- 
macy of  the  imion  existing  between  his  two  natures,  Schwenckfeld 
was  bound  to  differ  radically  from  Luther  in  his  conception  of 
the  mode  of  Clirist's  presence  in  the  sacrament.  The  precise 
points  here  at  issue  will  become  more  evident  if,  in  setting  forth 
Schwenckfeld's  answer  to  this  decisive  question,  we  reproduce  the 
polemic  coloring  that  characterized  his  whole  system  of  thought. 
For  after  all  Luther's  doctrme  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body  was 

*  It  is  an  interesting  analog}-  that  Schwenckfeld  employs  to  body  forth  his  idea 
of  the  relation  of  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity.  "Daher  T\-ird  audi  Cliristus 
die  rechte  Hand  Gottes  des  ^'aters  genannt,  dass  Gott  der  A'ater  durch  Christum 
im  heiligen  Geiste  alles  hat  geschaffen;  dass  Christus  der  Sohn,  das  Wort,  ja  die 
rechte  Hand  Gottes  ist  vom  'S'ater  als  dem  Haupte  ins  Fleiscli  ausgegangen  und 
hat  darin  uml  dadurch  Erlcisung  gewirkt  im  Finger,  das  ist  im  heiligen  Geiste" 
(C  104).  Cf.  in  this  letter  the  section  entitled  "Wie  Christus  sit zet  zu  der  Rechten 
Gottes  und  was  essei"  (pp.  lOG-110),  and  in  the  tract  Apologia  und  ErkluTung  der 
Scldcsier,  etc.,  section  17,  pp.  G,  Gi,  Gii. 

t  "Esse  ubique  est  esse  in  totfl,  non  in  parte;  est  omnia  contiiiere,  a  nuUo  con- 
tineri,"  D  257d,  in  margin.  Cf.  the  section  in  the  Confession  (Part  III)  entitled 
^'om  Wescn  dcs  Lcibcs  Christi  in  der  Gloricn  und  ob  Christus  nacli  seinc7i  beiden 
Naturcn  altcnthalben  sci,  und  was  allcntltalhcn  sein  hcissc,  and  the  tract  ]'eTanl- 
wortung  und  Defension  jiir  C.  Schwenckfeld  der  Punhtc  und  Irrtltiimer  damit 
ihn  Doctor  Joachim  von  Wat  unrccht  bcjchuldigl ,  especially  paragraph  5:  Dass 
Chriatus  nicht  im  Himmel  als  an  einem  Iciblichen  oder  riiumlichen  Orte  sitze  oder 
umschricben. 

t  B  23Sb. 


46 

only  one  of  many  causes  that  prevented  the  Silesiiui  reformer  from 
identifying  himself,  in  the  eucharistic  controvcrs}-,  with  any  of  the 
recognized  church  parties  or  leaders. 

We  shall  not  need  to  dwell  upon  his  absolute  rejection  of  the  Rom- 
ish theory  of  the  Redeemer's  presence  in  the  sacrament.  The  mass 
was  to  him  an  abominable  idolatry.*  For  him,  as  for  every  other 
representative  of  a  genuinely  Protestant  view  of  the  Supper,  the 
bread  remained  bread  and  the  wine  wine.f  Transubstantiation  is 
regarded  as  the  figment  of  an  unsanctified  mind  incapable  of  dis- 
cerning the  spiritual  content  of  the  letter  of  Scripture. t  The 
Church  may  indeed  present  offerings  to  God,  but  they  are  the 
sacrifices  of  praise  and  self-denial  and  service,  not  of  the  body  of 
Christ.  §  The  all-comprehending  objection  to  Rome's  answer  of 
the  question  concerning  the  mode  of  the  Lord's  presence  in  this  rite 
is  that  the  mass  detracts  from  the  glory  of  "the  ruling  King  of 
grace.  "II  Christ  is  not  in  any  such  sense  in  the  Supper  that  his 
presence  calls  for  a  worshijD  of  the  sacramental  elements.^  No  one 
can  change  the  bread  into  his  body;  he  is  no  longer  imder  the 
power  of  sinners.** 

From  what  has  been  said  of  Schwenckfeld's  objection  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  human  nature  we  are  prepared  to 
see  him  oppose,  in  the  second  place,  the  Lutheran  answer  to  the 
question  concerning  the  mode  of  the  Lord's  presence  in  the  Supper. 

"We  need  not  enlarge  upon  the  data  already  given  that  showed 

*  See  especially  the  four  prefatory  Sendbriefe  in  B  and  the  immediately  follow- 
ing epistles. 

■\  Cf  Baur,  TertuUians  Lelire  voni  Abendmahl  ....  nebst  einer  tjbersicht 
viber  die  Hauptmomente  der  Gescliichte  der  Lelire  vom  Abendmahl,  in  Tubinger 
Zeits.  fur  TheoL,  1S39,  H.  1,  pp.  107fT. 

t  Cf.  B,  Part  I,  pp.  S,  100,  and  B,  p.  442c,  C  77a,  9G9b. 

§  B,  pp.  11,  19f.  Cf.  the  tract  Von  dreierlei  Lebcn  der  Menschen.,  especially  cap. 
XX,  Von  dreierlei  guten  Werken  dcs  Glaubens  und  christliclien  Lehent  (D  673  sqq.) . 

!)  See  B,  p.  9,  where  this  general  consideration  is  resolved  into  fifteen  specific 
arguments  against  the  mass,  as  follows: 

1.  Sophistica  ilia  transsubstantio  panis  in  corpus  Cliristi  gloriosum.  2.  Obla- 
tio  corporis  Christi  sub  specie  panis  pro  A-ivis  et  defunctis.  3.  Trina  corporis 
Christi  fractio  et  improbabiUs  appUcatio.  4.  Actionis  Cliristi  ipsissima  perversio. 
5,  Peccatorum  ficta  per  opus  operatum  remissio.  6.  Hostiae  consecrata;  tanquani 
idoli  adoratio.  7.  Christi  regis  infinitse  gloria>  localis  inclusio.  8.  Poenitcntia' 
per  missam  extinctio.  9.  Coena?  dominies  abolitio.  10.  Cliristi  regnantis  e 
dextera  Patris  super  altare  eorum  detractio.  11.  Regis  e  regno  suo  characteris- 
tica  expulsio.  12.  Verborum  de  corpore  et  sanguine  Christi  falsa  ad  panem 
relatio.  13.  Sanctorum  contra  sacerdotium  et  mediationeni  Christi  invocatio. 
14.  Symoniaca  missarum  nundinantio  et  grati.T  venditio.  15.  Precatio  cceca  et 
inhibita. 

U  A  105a.  **  Ibid. 


47 

liow  Luther  in  his  doctrine  of  the  sacraments,  in  trj'ing  to  hold  a 
middle  course  between  the  Romanists  and  the  fanatics,*  was 
compelled  to  approximate  the  former  by  the  logic  of  his  sharp 
attack  upon  the  latter.  He  not  merely  emphasized  anew  the  real 
objective  content  of  the  sacrament,  but  identified  this  content  with 
the  material  or  corporeal  presence  of  the  Redeemer  in  a  mamier 
that  made  it  possible  that  the  body  of  Clirist  might  be  ' '  distributed, 
eaten,  and  masticated  by  the  teeth"  even  of  an  ungodly  and  unbe- 
lieving man.f  Schwenckfcld  therefore  rejects  the  Lutheran  as 
much  as  the  Roman  Catholic  idea  of  the  consecratory  act  in  the 
eucharist.  "Therefore  consecrare  does  not  mean  to  convert  the 
earthly  mto  the  heavenl}',  or  to  transubstantiate.  Nor  does  it  mean 
to  unite  one  thing  with  another,  as  the  Lutherans  imagine,  a  sacra- 
vxentalem  iinioncm  paiiis  cum,  Chrisli  corpore,  nor  an  impana- 
tionem,  eine  Einbrotung,  vi  verborum,  ....  but  it  signifies  to 
separate,  to  accept,  by  pra)'er  to  bless  or  consecrate  something,  to 
give  thanks  vmto  God,  to  remember  the  benefits  of  Christ,  as  also 
apud  panem  vel  in  pane  eucharisiico  to  celebrate  the  death  of  Christ, 
to  represent  the  heavenly  realit}',  to  praise  and  thank  Clrrist  for 
his  spiritual  food  imto  eternal  life.  It  does  not  mean  to  seek  the 
divine  and  heavenlj^  in  pane  eucharistico,  much  less  to  regard  the 
bread  itself  as  such.  "J  As  this  passage  indicates,  Schwenckfeld 
represents  the  Lutheran  doctrine  as  teacbing  impanation.§  The 
sense  in  which  the  term  is  used,  however,  does  no  injustice  to  the 
peculiar  •views  of  this  class  of  his  opponents.  For  while  he  fails 
to  grasp  the  full  significance  of  the  active  principle  of  faith  m  their 
system,  he  clearly  apprehends  the  inadequacies  of  theu  "sacra- 

*  Cf.  Wider  die  himvjKschen  Prophetcn,  St.  Louis  edition,  Vol.  XX,  p.  251: 
"Darum  gehen  vnr  z'nisclien  beiden  hin  und  maclicn  nichts  veder  geistlich  noch 
leiblich,  sondern  halten  geistlich  was  Gott  geistlich  und  leiblich  was  er  leiblich 
maeht." 

t  See  his  "Bedenken"  concerning  union  with  the  Zwinghans,  dated  December 
17,  1534,  in  the  St.  Louis  edition,  XVII,  col.  2052.  Of  course  the  Formula  Cvn- 
cordia  (Epiiome,  Art.  VII,  Negativa  21 ;  SchafT,  The  Creeds  o/  Chriittendo7>i ,  III,  p. 
140)  utterly  rejects  and  condemns  "Capernaiticam  manducationcm  corporis 
Christ!  quam  nobis  Sacramentarii  contra  sua-  conscicntia>  testimonium,  post  tot 
nostras  protestationes,  malitiose  afhngunt,"  etc.  But  it  was  precisely  ■with  the 
crass  literalism  of  Luther  that  Schwenckfeld  had  to  deal.  Cf.  C  236c.  Par- 
ticularh'  objectionable  was  the  statement  in  Luther's  last  Sliort  Confessum  on  the 
Holy  Sacrament  that  the  bread  in  the  Supper  is  the  Lord's  body,  wliich  the  godless 
man  or  Judas  receives  orally  just  as  much  as  do  St.  Peter  and  all  the  saints  (St. 
Louis  edition,  XX,  col.  1778).  Schwenckfeld  T\TOte  a  special  treatise  on  the  sub- 
ject: Ob  Juda^  und  die  ungluuhigen,  fahchcn  Christen  den  Leib  und  das  Blut  Jcsu 
Christi  im  Kachtmahl  des  Ilerm  empfangcn. 

X  A  856c.     a.  C  148,  B  53d,  61c,  143b. 

i  Cf.  also  A  415b,  B,  Part  I,  101a,  B  38d,  C  75c,  97c,  17Sff. 


48 

mental  union"  between  the  bread  and  the  body  of  Christ.  With 
whatever  name  he  chooses  to  label  the  Lutheran  doctrine,*  he 
reveals  in  his  refutations  a  clear  understanding  of  the  precise 
issues,  as  appears  from  his  sixfold  argument  against  the  theory: 
It  is  contrary  (1)  to  the  content  of  all  Scripture;  (2)  to  the  nature  of 
the  (eternal)  Word;  (3)  to  the  character  of  genuine  faith;  (4)  to  the 
kingdom,  New  Testament ,  and  high  priesthood  of  Clu-ist ;  (5)  to  the 
honor  and  glory  of  God;  and  (6)  to  the  institution  of  the  Supper  and 
the  usage  of  the  early  Church. f  The  Lutheran  formula  ' '  in,  with, 
and  imder"  is  condenmed  as  an  artificial  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  institution.!  The  Lutheran  view  is  after  all  a  prop  for  the 
papacy.  "For  although  Luther  out  of  God's  gracious  revelation 
pointed  out  many  errors  of  the  papacy" — in  this  sentence  we  have 
Schwenckfeld's  attitude  to  the  conservatives  on  the  right  wing 
accurately  pictured — "it  was  not  given  him  of  God  to  reform  the 
sacraments,  nor  to  establish  a  united,  blessed  Cliristian  Chm-ch; 
he  failed  even  to  this  extent,  that  in  the  article  concerning  the 
sacrament,  upon  which  the  whole  papacy  and  anti-Cliristian  king- 
dom with  its  fomidations,  masses  and  other  characteristics  is  dedi- 
cated, he  only  confirmed  this  Church,  inasmuch  as  he  fought  so 
\aolently  in  behalf  of  the  papists,  that  every  priest,  no  matter  what 
sort  of  man  he  is,  might  j)er  verba  con  seer  atio7us  bring  do'^^m  Clirist 
from  heaven  upon  the  altar  into  the  bread  or  under  its  form."§ 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that,  apart  from  all  the  christological  difR- 
culties  involved,  Luther's  theory  of  the  substantial  presence  of  the 
Redeemer's  body  was  too  gi'oss  and  massive  a  literalism  to  suit  the 
spiritualistic  presui:)positions  of  a  man  like  Schwcnckfeld.H 

*  It  is  well  knov.li  how  the  Lutherans  object  also  to  the  term  consubstantiation. 
See,  e.g.,  Ivrauth,  The  Conscrrclire  Rejormation  and  its  Thcohgi/,  pp.  130,  339  fq. 
it  passim.  But  so  far  at  least  as  Luther,  Sch-ncncl;feld's  protagonist,  is  con- 
cerned, there  can  be  no  valid  objection  to  the  use  of  the  term  consubstantiation, 
or  even  its  partial  equivalent  inipanation,  pro\nded  only  the  idea  of  a  local  oi 
physical  inclusion  of  the  material  body  of  Christ  be  eliminated. 

t  See  B,  Part  I,  ]).  IS,  and  the  whole  of  the  first  letter,  ^'om  Grund  vnd  von  der 
Ursachc  dcs  Irrl)iv>n.':  hcini  Sncrainetil  drs  Hcrrn  Nachtmalds. 

i  "Etliche  sagcn  er  sei  im  Brot,  Ethche  untcrm  Brot,  Etliche  sagen  er  sei  das 
materi-'ile  Erot  selbst,  da  man  bald  ihre  Ungewissheit  mag  finden.  Denn  was  in, 
mit,  oder  unter  eincni  Ding  ist.  kann  ja  das  Ding  nicht  sellist  scin,  wie  ilir  wisset, 
Es  werdcn  audi  solchc  mit  ihren  'in,  mit,  oder  unter'  durch  die  Worte  'Das  ist 
mein  Lcib'  (auf  welclie  sie  dennoch  fest  tiotzeu)  selbst  iiberwunden"  {A  415bc). 

§  C  519d. 

!j  It  is  not  necessary  to  make  special  reference  to  Jlelanchthon.  Melanchthon 
expressed  n  no  doubt  common  judgment  upon  the  Silesian  when  in  a  letter  to 
Frecht,  of  Octolicr,  1535,  lie  called  him  "stultum  magis  quam  improbum" 
{Corpus  RejorniatcTum,  cd.  Bretschneidcr,  II,  955) ;  and  in  155G  his  chief  objection 


49 

But  if  the  Romanists  and  Lutherans,  according  to  Schwenckfeld, 
practiced  idolatry  in  the  eucharist,  Zwingh  and  the  Anabaptists 
made  too  httle  of  this  sacrament.  Before  setting  forth  his  own 
views,  therefore,  it  may  be  advantageous  to  consider  his  objections 
to  the  Swiss  doctrine  concerning  the  mode  of  Christ's  presence  in 
the  Supper. 

The  key  to  ZwuigU's  position  is  found,  of  course,  in  his  symboUc 
interpretation  of  the  verb  in  the  words  of  institution:  est  is  equiva- 
lent to  significat.  The  Supper  is,  therefore,  primarily  a  memorial 
of  the  Saviour's  death,  a  s5'mbolic  act  picturmg  this  redemptive  fact; 
while  at  the  same  time  stress  is  laid  upon  the  character  of  this  rite 
as  a  badge  of  Christian  faith  and  as  a  communion  with  Clnist  and 
with  the  fellow-believers.*  The  Supper  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  a 
gi-ace  already  bestowed,  rather  than  a  means  by  which  to  secure  the 
grace  itself.  It  must  be  added,  however,  that  Zwmgli  at  times 
vmequivocally  asserted  the  spiritual  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacra- 
ment. To  be  sure  his  polemic  attitude  led  him  rather  to  emphasize 
the  absence  of  the  Saviour's  body,  but  the  other  po.?itive  factor  is 
not  to  be  forgotten,  j 


■was  to  the  marvelous  literary  actiWty  of  the  "hundred-handed"  " Stenkfeldius " 
and  his  "milites,  qui  ipsius  nomine  non  solum  scripta  spargunt  sed  etiam  sedi- 
tiones  movent,  jactitant  adflatus,  et  abducunt  homines  a  pubUco  minisferio  et  a 
lectione  et  cogitatione  doctrinx"  (ibid.,  VIII,  p.  740).  Schwenekfeld  in  turn 
simply  identified  Melanclithonmth  the  Lutheran  movement,  and  made  no  allow- 
ance for  the  mediating  tendencies  on  the  eucharistic  question  revealed  b.y  the 
author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  editio  of  1540.  Nor  indeed  coukl 
Schwenckfeld  consistently  have  adopted  even  the  latest  concessions  of  Melanch- 
thon.  For  in  proportion  as  the  latter  receded  from  his  Romanizing  position  of 
1530  and  admitted  the  figurative  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution,  he  was 
simply  transferring  himself  from  one  to  another  of  the  extreme  parties  between 
whicli  Schwenckfeld  tried  to  maintain  himself.  For  the  condemnation  of 
Schwenckfeld  by  the  Schmalcald  theologians,  including  Justas  Jonas,  Bugenhagen, 
Melanchthon  and  Amsdorf,  and  for  Scliwcnckfcld's  reply  to  their  "misunder- 
standing" of  his  views,  see  C  691  ff. 

*  Z-ningli's  eucharistic  ^iews  are  fuUy  discussed  by  August  Baur,  Zwinglis 
Theologic:  Ihr  Wcrdcn  und  ihr  System.  Sec  especially  I,  357£f.,  427fT.;  II,  29Sff. 
500ff. 

t  "Adserimus  igitur  non  sic  carnalitcr  et  crasse  manducavi  corpus  Christi  in 
ccena,  ut  isti  perhibent,  sed  verum  Christi  corpus  crcdiinus  in  cccna  sacramenta- 
liter  et  spirituahter  edi  a  reUgiosa,  fideli  et  sancta  mente,  quomodo  et  divus 
Chrysostonius  scntit.  Et  liaec  est  brevis  summa  nostra:-,  imnio  non  nostrx,  sed 
jpsius  veritatis,  sententia;  de  hac  controvcrsia"  {Confcssio  ad  Franciscutn  Fran- 
corum  Regem,  in  Niemeyer's  CoUedio  ConjeifSiOnwn,  p.  72).  Adamson,  The  Chris- 
tian Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  01,  in  Ids  account  of  Zwingh's  views,  is 
incomplete  and  even  misleading;  but  he  has  done  well  to  empliatize  anew  the 
higher  factors  in  this  type  of  doctrine.  Of.  also  Ebrard,  Das  Dogma  vom  hi. 
Abendmahl  und  seine  Geschichtc,  II,  220  sqq. 
4 


50 

From  what   has   already  been   said  we   are  prepared  to  find 
Schwenckfeld  objecting  to  Zwingh's   conception  of  heaven  as  a 
locahty;*  to  his  strong  insistence  that  the  bodj'  of  Christ,  spoken  of 
in  Matt.  xxA-i.  26,  is  that  consigned  to  death  and  not  the  risen  body,t 
and  to  the  rhetorical  device,  called  aUaeosis,X  ■v\"hereby  a  statement 
made  concerning  one  of  the  two  natures  in  Clirist  is  to  be  referred  to 
the  other  without  prejudicing  either  the  unity  of  his  person  or  the 
distinction  of  his  natures.     But  the  chief  objection  was  that  against 
the  sjmibolic  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution.     Schwenck- 
feld  here    clearly  discerned  that  the   Zwiuglian  ^^ew  embodied 
a  rationalistic  tendency.  §    He  complained  that  it  reduced  the 
Supper  to  a  meal  that  was  nothing  more  than  the  manna  or  paschal 
lamb  of  the  Jews.|l     In  his  judgment  no  symbolic  construction  of 
the  verb  could  do  justice  to  the  blessed  but  mysterious  reality 
■of   the    sacrament,    for    which   faith   is   the    mdisjjensable    con- 
dition.    In  spite,    then,    of   the    points   of    contact  between  his 
view   and    that   of   the  Swiss  Ij — the  points,   namely,    m   which 
both   opposed  the   Lutheran    and   Roman   Catholic    doctrines — 
Schwenckfeld  never  could  rest  satisfied  with  the  primarj'  considera- 
tion of  Zwinglianism,  that  the  elements  after  all  only  symbolize  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.     By  the  ardor  of  his  deep  piety  rather 
than  by  the  logic  of  his  system,  he  magnified  the  reality  of  the 
sacramental  grace  with  a  zeal  that  appeared  all  the  more  impressive 
because  his  philosophic  presuppositions  seemed  to  annihilate  the 
external  ordinance  itself. 

We  need  not  adduce  the  scattered  references  to  Oecolampad, 
Capito  and  Bucer.**  The  first,  indeed,  emphasized  the  idea  of  a 
sacramental  nourishment,  very  much  as  Schwenckfeld  did,  and 
considerably  enriched  Zwingli's  refutation  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
corporeal  presence  in  the  Supper.ff     But  the  solution  offered  by 

*  C  597(i,  795b. 

t  Zu'inglii  Opera,  Scliuler  et  Schulthess,  III,  p.  523.  Cf.  Schwenckfeld's 
Bekenntnis  ron  der  gotllichen  Hcrrlichkeil  des  Lcibes,  Fleisches  und  Bluts  Christi, 
in  D,  pp.  263ff. 

i  A  597bc.  §  Cf .  A  727b,  B  240a.  ||  A  667d. 

^  Zwincli  liim.self  (Opera,  II,  Abt.  3,  p.  23),  in  his  Vorrede  of  152S  to  Schwenck- 
feld's  Anwcisung,  declares  that  tlic  lattcr's  views  are  not  opposed  to  his  own,  but 
rather  included  in  them.  He  here  tries  to  endorse  Schwenckfeld's  exegesis  by 
citing  a  Hebrew  analogue.     Cf.  A  672. 

**  See  especially  A  G73fr. 

tt  Goctz,Lc.,  p.  72;cf.  Kahnis, /.c.,pp.  332*97.  Schwenckfeld  even  fancied  that 
his  own  view  of  the  difference  between  the  inner  and  the  outer  Word  was  shared 
bj'  Oecolampad.  See  C  336,  where  he  approvingly  quotes  the  Swiss  reformer's 
comment  on  Ezek.  iii. 


51 

Oecolampad,  that  of  interpreting  the  term  corpus  in  the  words  of 
institution  as  the  equivalent  of  figura  corporis,  was  not  a  whit  more 
attractive  to  the  Silesian  than  was  ZwingU's.  In  his  judgment 
both  deprived  the  sacrament  of  its  deepest  essence.  Capito  had,  to 
be  sure,  thoroughly  approved  of  Schwenckfeld's  doctrine  as  early  as 
1529.*  The  same  is  true  of  Bucer,  who  was  displeased  with  Luther's 
harsh  treatment  of  the  Silesian. f  But  later  imder  Bucer's  influence 
Capito  likewise  became  a  bitter  opponent  of  Schwenckfeld's 
eucharlstic  (and  ecclesiological)  views.  J 

It  is  time,  however,  to  let  Schwenckfeld  present  his  own  positive 
view  of  the  mode  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Supper. 

He  himself  tells  us  at  some  length  the  facts  concerning  the  origin 
and  growth  of  his  peculiar  doctrine.  §  Unable  to  believe,  as  the 
Romanists  and  Lutherans  taught,  that  even  a  Judas  Iscariot  could 
eat  the  body  of  Christ,  and  unable  to  accept  the  positive  elements  of 
Zwingli's  teaching  as  sufficient,  Schwenckfeld  felt  himself  moved  to 
an  independent  study  of  the  question  which  the  Carlstadt-Luther 
controversy  had  already  made  the  most  prominent  issue  in  the 
field  of  religious  discussion.  Being  unfamiliar  with  Greek  at  that 
time — it  was  the  year  1525 — ^he  submitted  his  views  to  his  friend 
Val.  I^autwald,  of  Liegnitz.  Krautwald  at  first  sharply  opposed 
him,  whereupon  Schwenckfeld  sent  him  some  duodecim  quoestiones 
or  argumenia  contra  impanationetn.\\  Ivrautwald  himself  now 
passed  through  an  experience  very  similar  to  ■'hat  of  his  correspond- 
ent: there  was  a  season  of  profoimd  intellectual  and  spiritual 
anxiety  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  eucharist,  when  suddenly, 
after  three  days'  meditation  and  prayer,  he  received  a  divine  revela- 
tion,Tj  teaching  him  a  new  and  more  satisfactory  interpretation  of 

*  See  tlie  preface,  by  Capito,  to  the  Apologia  und  Erhldrung  der  Schlesier  dasa 
sie  den  Leih  und  das  Blut,  etc.,  ....  nicht  verleugnen;ci.  A-fy7ZS. 
t  Schneider,  I.e.,  Abt.  I,  p.  9,  and  n.  15,  p.  28f. 

I  Gerbert,  I.e.,  pp.  1S8-193. 

§  The  leading  pa.ssages  are  contained  in  C  p.  2-lfF.,  C.  Schwenckfclds  Handlung 
vnd  Gesprueh  mil  den  Gclchrlcn  zu  Willenhcrg  ....  vom  reclitcn  Verstajide  der 
WoTle  "Das  ist  mein  Leib,"  and  C  p.  20  sqq.,  Von  der  Ofjcnbarung  des  rechlen 
Verstandes  beim  A'aehlmald  und  Essen  seines  Lcibcs  (anno  1540).  Erbkam 
Gesckichle,  etc.,  p.  370f.,  gives  the  gist  of  the  narrative.  Cf.  Hampe,  p.  llff., 
Planck,  V,  1,  Buch  IV,  cap.  7,  and  Arnold,  Kirchen-  und  Ketzer  Hist.,  I,  Th.  II, 
Buch  XVI,  cap.  XX,  p.  838. 

II  C  22. 

\  We  need  not  bj-  this  term  understand  anything  more,  in  the  case  of  either 
Schwenckfeld  or  Ivrautwald,  than  the  sudden  enhghtenment  of  the  mind  earn- 
estly seeldng  the  true  sense  of  Scripture.  For  Krautwald's  experience  see  the 
letters  WTitten  by  him  to  Schwenckfeld  and  incorporated  in  C  as  ScndOricje  1  and 
li,  and  witli  tliis  co;npare  Schv.-cnckfeld's  story,  C  22ff. 


52 

the  much  discussed  words.  Thus  encouraged  Schwenckfeld  went 
to  "Wittenberg  *  to  submit  his  views  to  Luther.  The  interview  was, 
on  the  wliole,  encouraging  to  the  inquirer.  But  "about  two 
months  later"  Luther  is  said  to  have  witten  him  a  sharp  letter, 
closuig  with  the  words:  "In  short,  either  you  or  we  must  be  the 
devil's  bondsmen,  because  we  both  claim  the  Word  of  God  in 
our  behalf,  "t  Nothmg  daunted,  however,  the  two  friends  con- 
firmed each  other  in  their  lingular  view  and  soon  the  break  with 
Luther  was  complete. 

We  may  come  to  the  heart  of  the  matter  by  following  the  exe- 
getical  arguments  with  which  Schwenckfeld  sought  to  buttress  his 
theory.J  He  inverted  the  words  of  institution  and  made  the  pro- 
noun a  "ppii-itual  demonstrative,"  yielding  the  sense:  "My  body 
is  this,  namely,  bread  or  true  nourishment  for  the  soul;  my  blood 
is  this,  namely,  drhik  or  true  refreshment  for  the  soul. ' '  In  support 
of  this  exegetical  device  reference  was  made  to  coimtless  alleged 
analogous  texts,  as,  for  example,  Gen.  xvii.  10,  "This  is  my  cove- 
nant, ' '  etc. ;  Exod.  xii.  27,  "It  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  passover" ; 
Ezek.  v.  5,  "This  is  Jerusalem. "§  Kostlm  is  doubtless  correct  in 
attributing  the  opposition  of  the  Silesian  to  the  figurative  mter- 
pretation  to  the  mfluence  of  Luther  himself,l|  since  he  had  insisted 
that  even  in  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  x.  4,  "  and  the  rock  was  Christ, 
the  verb  is  to  be  taken  literally  so  that  the  sense  would  be,  Christ 

*  Tliis  was  at  least  his  second  trip  tlii^'ier.  The  first  had  occurred  toward  the 
end  of  1521.  Cf.  Schneider,  Uicr  dm  geschichlUchcn  Verlmij,  etc.,  Abt.  I,  p.  4. 
Tliis  does  not,  however,  conflict  vA\.h  the  more  usual  statement  that  the  visit 
occurred  in  1522;  for  he  stayed  there  at  least  long  enough  to  attend  the  official 
investigation  on  Januarj-  1,  1522,  by  Melanchthon,  into  the  doings  of  the 
Z'nickau  prophets. 

t  C  p.  22c.  Erbkam,  I.e.,  p.  371  n.,  insists— following  the  Erlangen  edition  of 
Lutlier's  works  (Vol.  53,  p.  383)— that  the  date  of  Luther's  reply  wa-s  August  11, 
152G,  and  that  therefore  the  "two  months"  here  named  were  in  reahty  nearly 
ten,  inasmucli  as  the  inter\-iew  was  held,  according  to  C  24,  early  in  December, 
1525.  (Goetz,  I.e.,  p.  77,  n.  2,  \\Tongly  represents  Kostlin,  Martin  Luther,  IP,  p. 
S2,  as  saj-ing  that  the  inte^^^ew  itself  occurred  in  December  of  the  year  1526). 
Enders,  however  {Drieju'eclw-d  Lnthcrs,\,  33S),  and  following  him  the  editors  of 
the  St.  Louis  edition  O'ol.  XXIa,  p.  851),  put  the  date  of  the  letter  in  question  at 
April  14,  1520.  Even  so  tlie  term  "two  montlis"  must  be  taken  as  a  round 
expression  for  four  months.  Moreover,  the  concluding  sentence,  cjuoted  above, 
is  not  to  be  found  in  that  form  in  the  epistle.  Schwenckfeld  must  be  understood 
as  gi\ing  merely  the  spirit  of  Luther's  reply. 

J  The  "credit"  of  the  discovery  belongs  to  Schwenckfeld;  for  its  scientific 
%-indieation,  however,  he  was  largely — at  least  until  he  became  master  of  the 
Greek  language — indebted  to  Ivrautwald.     Cf.  Hampe,  p.  11. 

§  Cf.  A  704. 

II  Martin  Luther,  IP,  p.  S3. 


53 

was  really  and  truly  the  rock,  namely  that  spiritual  rock.*  In  the 
same  manner  Schweuckfeld  now  and  ever  after  insisted  upon  the 
literal  interpretation  of  the  verb  and  the  "spiritual"  interpretation 
of  the  (predicate)  pronoun  "this."t 

The  rationale  of  this  singular  view  must  be  found  in  the  funda- 
mental dualism  of  Schwenckfeld's  system  of  thought.  There  are 
in  short  two  kinds  of  bread  in  the  Supper:  the  physical  and  the 
spiritual;  the  bread  of  the  Lord  and  the  bread  which  is  the  Lord. 
Each  has  its  purpose :  ' '  There  are  therefore  two  kinds  of  bread  and 
drink  to  be  considered  in  the  complete  sacramental  transaction  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  where  it  is  celebrated  with  the  right  under- 
standing, faith,  and  knowledge,  in  the  due  coiu'se  of  grace :  one  for  the 
inner,  the  other  for  the  outer  man  that  believes.  The  inner  or 
spiritual  bread  or  food,  that  feeds  the  soul,  no  one  can  give,  as  has 
been  said,  save  only  Clu-ist  in  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  this  must  under 
all  circumstances  precede Thereupon  follows  the  sacra- 
mental, external  eating  to  proclaun  the  death  of  the  Lord  and  to 
give  thanks  for  his  salvation  and  nourishment.  "J  For  this  reason 
the  pronoun  {hoc)  is  no  corporaUs  dcnionstratio  ad  oculum,  but  a 
spiritualis    dcmonstraiio    ad    inteUectuni.%     To   these   two   sacra- 

*  The  mere  inversion  oi  the  words  of  institution  ought  not,  of  course,  to  be 
regarded  as  an  insuperable  objection  to  the  tlieory.  Cf.  Riiclcert,  Das  Abendmahl, 
iein  Wesen  und  seine  Geschichie  in  der  alien  K '  che,  wlio,  thougli  controverting 
Schwenckfeld's  interpretation,  yet  admits  (p.  66f.):  "Das  griechische  Pradikat 
geht  seinem  Subjekt  voran,  so  lange  kein  Grund  zum  Gegenteil  ist.  In  so  fern 
hatte  Sell wenckf eld  mit  seiner  Auffassung  recht. "  And  cf.  Goetz,  who  declares, 
I.e.,  p.  77,  tliat  "die  griechische  Wortstellung  in  der  Brotformel  des  Mt.  und  Mk., 
nur  fur  sich  und  rein  grammatisch  betrachtet,  eigentlich  die  Deutung  Schwenck- 
f elds  mehr  begiinstigt  als  die  Luthers,  bezw.  als  die  gewohnliche. ' '  In  any  event 
the  essence  of  his  exegesis  is  found  not  in  the  changed  order  of  the  words,  but  in 
his  interpretation  of  the  mim. 

t  He  was  thoroughly  famihar  with  the  fantastic  ^•iew  of  Carlstadt,  who, 
emphasizing  the  difference  in  gender  between  the  rovru  and  the  aproc,  de- 
clared that  the  former  must  refer  to  the  Lord's  body  (cdjun),  and  that  the 
Sa\-iour  when  instituting  the  Supper  pointed  to  liis  body  as  if  to  saj':  "Tliis  (body 
of  mine)  is  my  body  (about  to  be)  broken  for  you;  tlais  (blood)  is  my  blood  (about 
to  be)  shed  for  you."  See  the  excellent  account  of  Carlstadt 's  theory  by  Gobel, 
in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1842,  pp.  329-354.  For  Schwenckfeld's  brief  but 
adequate  criticism  of  Carlstadt,  see  C  01b,  C  175d  (anno  1.52G),  and  C  566. 

t  B  72d.  Tliis  is  the  burden  of  countless  passages  in  the  folios  and  the  separate 
treatises.  Cf.  B  5G4b  on  the  Zveierlci  Ordnung  aller  Dinge.  In  D  IS  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  inner  spiritual  and  the  outer  physical  eating  is  connected 
with  Augustin's  distinction  between  the  sacramenium  and  the  res  sacramenti.  Cf. 
also  D,  p.  897,  Von  dc?i  zweierlei  Brod  und  Trank  in  des  Herrn  A\achtmahl.  The 
necessity  of  appropriating  the  spiritual  before  the  material  food  in  order  to  par- 
take worthily  of  the  sacrament  is  emphasized  in  A  739a.  Tlie  error  of  his  oppo- 
nents is  ascribed,  as  usual,  to  a  lack  of  spiritual  discernment  in  the  reading  of  the 
Word  (A  C57d,  670a).  §  C  134f. 


54 

mental  realities,  the  spiritual  content  and  the  sensuous  sign,  more- 
over, the  two  declarations  in  the  words  of  institution  closely  cor- 
respond: "This  is  my  body,"  and  "this  do  in  remembrance  of 
me."  "We  thus  -^sTite  and  maintain,  that  in  the  complete  Supper 
of  the  Lord  two  thmgs  are  to  be  found:  one  is  that  which  the  Lord 
did  and  accompanied  with  appropriate  remarks,  when  he  took  the 
bread,  gave  thanks,  and  broke  it  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples  and 
said;  'Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you';  and  like- 
wise the  cup.  The  other  thing  is  that  which  Christ  afterward  com- 
manded his  disciples  to  do  when  he  said :  '  Do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me.'  "* 

As  implied  in  this  passage  and  frequently  stated  elsewhere,  the 
presence  of  the  true  and  spiritual  bread  of  life  is  the  logical  prius  in 
the  whole  sacramental  transaction.  And  there  ought  to  be  no  ques- 
tion about  Schwenckfeld's  wish  to  emphasize,  with  all  the  enthusi- 
asm of  his  mystic  piety,  the  real  presence  of  the  Redeemer  at  his 
table.  For  although  this  has  been  often  denied,t  the  arguments 
adduced  only  show  that  the  reformer  did  not  teach  the  corporeal  or 
bodilj'  presence  in  the  Roman  or  Lutheran  sense.  The  Saviour  is 
truly  or  "really"  present,  though  his  body  is  not  there  either  imder 
the  "accidents  of  the  bread  and  wine"  or  "in,  with,  or  imder" 
those  elements.  "That  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  not  on  this  account  denied"  was  a  favorite  thesis.!  He 
expresses  his  delight  in  the  con%'iction  of  a  correspondent,  "that  in 
the  Lord's  Supper  his  body,  flesh  and  blood,  indeed  the  Lord 
Christ  himself,  is  truly  (icahrhajtiglich)  and  essentially  (icescntKcJi) 
received.  "§ 

The  following  passage  will  serve  to  show  conclusivel}'  that  he 
held  to  what  must  m  all  fairness  be  called  a  true  or  actual  or  "real" 
presence:  "[I  believe]  that  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Chri.st  is 
vere  present  to  faith  in  the  mystery  of  the  holy  sacrament  (if  it  is 
observed  and  understood  according  to  his  institution).  For  that 
reason,  too,  it  is  called  by  the  Church  'mysterium  fidei,'  inasmuch 

*  A  761  d. 

t  E.g.,  Goetz,  I.e.,  p.  75:  "Audi  Schwenckfeld  verwarf,  wie  die  Schweizer,  die 
wirkliche  Gegenwart."  So  also  'Walch,  Eitrlcitu7ig  in  die  Rdigionsstreitigkeitcn, 
4.  und  5.  Theil,  1730,  p.  1012:  "In  dor  Lehre  vom  Abcndraahl  liiugnete  er  die 
wesentliclie  Gegenwart  des  Lcibes  und  Bluts  Christi."  Even  Hahn,  I.e.,  p.  14, 
declares:  "Apparet  e.\  his,  cur  ne  divinam  quidem  Cliristi  naturam  Schvrcnck- 
feldius  in  pane  atque  vino  eucharistico  vere  pra?sentem  cogitarc  potuerit,  non  ex 
alia  nenipe  causa,  nisi  quod  sint  elemeuta  creata,  a  quibus  divina  essentia  absolute 
sit  separata. ' ' 

t  B  74a.  I  B  119c. 


55 

as  it  is  only  by  the  light  of  faith  that  one  can  rightly  understand 
and  celebrate  the  ordinance,  and  tliiis  m  the  spirit  of  faith  eat  the 

bodj'  of  Christ  and  enjoy  participation  in  him [I  believe] 

that  m  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  in  the  mystery  of  the  sacrament  (as 
the  fathers  call  it),  believers  eat  the  body  of  Christ,  not  as  a  sign 
or  only  figuratively,  in  thought,  but  rere,  truly  (wahrhaflig) , 
essentially  (wcscntUch),  and  in  a  sensible  manner  (einpfindUch)  for 
the  noui'ishment  of  their  souls,  and  truly  drink  his  blood  in  and 
out  of  the  living  "Word  of  God. '  '* 

These  citations  will  have  served  to  point  out  both  the  shnilarities 
and  the  divergencies  between  Schwcnckfeld's  view  and  the  A'iews 
of  his  various  classes  of  opponents  concerning  the  mode  of  Christ's 
presence  m  the  sacrament.  On  the  one  hand,  the  opposition  to  the 
literalism  of  the  Romish  and  the  Lutheran  doctrines  must  be  said 
to  exclude  every  possibility  of  a  corporeal  presence. f  On  the  other 
hand,  the  pomts  of  contact  with  the  Swiss  or  Reformed  doctrine  are 
equally  obvious.  At  first  sight,  indeed,  it  would  appear  that 
Schwenckfeld's  conception  of  the  words  of  institution  is  virtually 
the  same  as  that  of  Zwuigli  or  Oecolampad;  that  whereas  Zwingli 
introduced  the  symbolic  pruiciple  into  the  verb  (est),  and  Oecolam- 
pad mto  the  noun  (corpus),  Schwenckfeld  did  preciselj'  the  same 
thing  by  his  ' '  sphitual, ' '  or  let  us  rather  say  his  spiritualistic,  mter- 
pretation  of  the  pronomi  (hoc).  It  must  be  admitted,  of  course, 
that  Schwenckfeld  regarded  the  sacramental  elements  primarily  as 
signs  or  vehicles  of  representation.!  But  while  acceptmg  in  the 
main  Zwingli's  anti-Romish  and  anti-Lutheran  mterpretation  of 
the  words  of  institution,  Schwenckfeld  caimot  be  said  to  have  been 
satisfied  with  the  rationalistic  spirit  of  the  Swiss  reformer's  general 
conception  of  the  sacrament.     Schwenckfeld's  positive  and  most 

*  P  50  sg. 

t  "Wenn  euch  aber  jeniand  sagte  C.[aspar]  S.[cliwenckfeld]  untersteht  sich  zu 
hindern  dass  vicle  Mcnschen  nun  nadi  eikannter  AA'ahrheit  das  irdische,  ge- 
backene  Brot  mit  deni  M.[artin]  L.[uther]  nicht  fiir  Gott  halten  und  abgottischer- 
weisc  anbetcn,  die  Seligkcit  dabci  suchen,  einen  broternen  Christum  liaben,  dass 
man  die  Mcn.<3chcn  drauf  -n-ciset,  da  moclitc  ich  gerne  horen  was  ilir  dazu  wurdet 
sagen." 

}  Sohenkel,  Das  Wescn,  etc.,  I,p.55S,  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say:  "Dass  Bred 
und  AVein  fiir  Sciiwenckfeld  Iccinc  aiidcre  Bedeutunp  als  diejenige  eincs  Dar- 
6t«llungsmittels  hat,  bezcugt  er  sehon  daiuit,  dass  er  sich  gegen  den  von  Luther 
und  auch  den  Verinittlcrn  gebrauclitcn  Ausdruck  'sacramentliclie  Einigung' 
(z^-isclien  Christi  Lcib  und  Blut  und  den  jiussern  Zeichen)  entscliieden  erklart." 
But  this  would  hold  equally  against  the  Reformed  \iew.  Moreover,  tlie  assertion 
in  this  extreme  form  fails  to  do  justice  to  the  many  passages,  only  a  few  of  which 
have  been  cited,  tliat  insist  upon  the  true  or  real  presence  of  Christ,  not  indeed  in 
a  "sacramental  union"  with  the  pliysical  elements,  but  in  or  at  the  Supper. 


56 

characteristic  elements,  therefore,  such  as  his  emphasis  upon  the 
real  presence  and  upon  the  profound  mysterj-  of  the  inner  sacra- 
mental transaction,  his  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  blessings  bestowed 
upon  the  worthy  communicant — m  other  words  of  the  reality  and 
worth  of  the  strictly  objective  content  of  the  sacred  ordinance  when 
rightly  employed — suggest  a  comparison  with  the  Calvinistic  rather 
than  with  the  Zwinglian  or  early  Swiss  view.* 

For  Schwenckfeld,  like  Calvin,  taught  an  essentially  figurative 
interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution,  the  difference  being  that 
the  latter  made  the  verb  and  the  former  the  pronomi  bear  a  spiritual 
meaning.  Both  insisted  that  the  sacrament  makes  a  real  offer  to  the 
commmiicant  not  merely  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  but  also 
of  his  whole  person  and  work,  including  therefore  all  the  blessings 
of  his  redemption.!  For  both  faith  was  of  such  cardinal  import- 
ance that,  whereas  the  Lutheran  and  the  Roman  views  taught  a 
real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  m  such  terms  as  made  it  possible 
even  for  the  unworthy  and  the  mibelieving  to  "eat  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood, ' '  they  uisisted  that  without  faith 
the  participants  received  only  the  signs  and  that  to  their  condem- 
nation. Again,  Schwenckfeld,  like  Calvin,  not  onh'  avoided  this 
too  intimate  association  between  the  sacramental  substance  and  the 
sacramental  signs,  but  sought  rather  to  lay  all  emphasis  upon  the 
immediacy  of  the  effect  produced  upon  the  believer  by  the  entrance, 
not  into  his  mouth  but  into  his  soul,  of  the  spiritual  substance  of 
the  Redeemer's  body.  Above  all,  Schwenckfeld,  like  Calvin,  made 
much  of  the  glorifie '  humanity  of   the  Saviour,  of  his  djTiamic 


*  Cf.  Hampe,  I.e.,  p.  12:  "so  wl  ist  aber  aus  den  kurzen  Andeutungen  wohl 
klar  geworden,  dass  Scliwenckfeld  ungefahr  dasselbe  lehrte,  was  etwa  15  Jalire 
Bpiiter  als  Cahiuische  Lehre  wcite  Verbreitur.g  fand."  Niedner,  Geschichte  der 
christlichcti  Kirche,  1840,  p.  076,  n.  1,  declares:  "Es  isl  wesentlich  das  cahinische 
Sicli-erheben-lassen  des  gliiubigen  Geistes  zu  der  vergotteten  [this  last  word  is  not, 
of  course,  to  be  understood  as  referring  also  to  Cah'iu's  christology]  Menschheit 
Christi,  durch  die  .\Ugegenwartigkeit  seines  heiligen  Geistes;  also  ohne  eine  Ort- 
liclie  Selbsiversetzung  entweder  des  Menschengeistes  in  den  Himmel  oder  des 
Christusleibes  auf  die  Erde. ' '  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  Schwenck- 
feld ol)jectcd  as  much  to  Cahin's  as  to  Zwingli's  figurative  interpretation  of  the 
verb  est.  Cf.  C  52-4,  where  the  two  are  placed  together  for  criticism.  Logically, 
however,  his  protest  against  tlie  figurative  interpretation  is  not  warranted:  we 
find  here  another  illustration  of  the  discrepanc)'  between  his  negations  and  his 
affirmations. 

t  Schwenckfeld's  doctrine  of  the  true  bread  of  life  has  made  tliis  clear.  The 
point  will  be  more  fully  discussed  in  connection  with  t!ie  question  of  the  benefits 
to  be  derived  from  a  right  use  of  the  sacrament.  For  Cahin's  views,  see  his 
Insliltilio,  Lil>.  IV,  especially  c.  XVII,  sections  10-lS. 


67 

presence  in  the  Supper,  of  that  dmne  energj'  that  emanated  from 
the  body  of  the  exalted  Lord  of  life.* 

Li  this  virtually  Calvinistic  sense,  therefore,  Schwenckfeld 
taught  a  true  or  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist.  A  number 
of  further  similarities  between  his  view  and  that  of  the  Reformed 
leaders  will  emerge  when  we  now  consider  his  response  to  the 
second  specific  question  which  engaged  the  minds  of  the  sacia- 
mentarian  controversialists  of  that  day,  namely,  What  are  the  bene- 
fits to  be  derived  from  the  right  use  of  the  sacred  institution?  The 
answer  has  already  been  given  by  way  of  necessary  implication. 
But  a  more  adequate  discussion  of  this  pomt  will  reveal  additional 
characteristic  elements  of  Schwenckfeld's  system  of  thought. 

We  have  seen  how  his  fundamental  dualism  affected  his 
conception  of  the  nature  of  the  sacraments  in  general  and,  in 
particular,  of  the  mode  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Supper.  There 
is  an  outer  and  there  is  an  iimer  transaction;  a  physical. or  earthly 
bread  and  wine,  and  a  spiritual  or  heavenly  bread  and  wine :  and 
corresponding  to  these  there  is  a  carnal  eating  and  drinking,  and 
there  is  a  spiritual  eating  and  drinking.  And  it  is  obviously  with 
these  subjective  acts,  these  assimilative  processes  that  we  must 
now  concern  ourselves,  if  we  would  ascertain  the  benefits  imparted 
to  the  worthy  or  believing  communicant. 

Here,  as  elsewhere,  we  find  Schwenckfeld  not  only  acquainted 
with  the  theological  battle-cries  of  the  day  but  thoroughly  domi- 
nated by  their  influence;  but  here,  as  elsewhere,  his  use  of  them  is 
peculiar  to  himself.  In  harmony  with  his  view  of  the  eucharist  as 
a  double  reality  he  distinguishes  between  two  generic  kinds  of  bene- 
fits, those  derived  from  the  outer  ceremony  and  tho.?e  derived  from 
the  inner  mystery.     The  external  act  or  the  commemoratio,  whereby 

*  The  mj'stical  features  of  Cahin's  doctr:  e  of  the  eucharist  are  as  difficult  to 
understand  as  are  Schwenckfeld's  peculiarities.  Ebrard,  Das  Dogma  vom  M. 
Aberuhnahl,  II,  4.58  sqq.,  gives  what  must  doubtless  be  reg.irded  as  the  fittest 
solution  of  tlie  problem,  when  he  sliows  liow  the  subslanlta  of  Christ's  presence  in 
the  Slipper  denotes,  according  to  Calvin,  not  the  material  substance  of  his  body, 
but  that  "essence  of  the  glorified  Clirist"  which  is  to  be  conceived  primarily  as  a 
power,  an  energy,  an  "actus  in  actu  non  extensum  in  extenso."  The  similarity 
on  this  point  between  Calvin  and  Schwenckfeld  is  most  striking.  But  there  is  a 
diflerence.  Calnn  never  .lUows,  as  Schwenckfeld  doe=,  the  glorification  of  the 
R  deemer's  human  nature  to  amount  to  a  "deification,"  Moreover,  closely 
connected  with  tlus  is  the  fact  tliat  Calvin  represents  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the 
mediator  of  the  spiritual  bl&ssings,  whereas  Schwenckfeld,  ^\-ith  a  consistent 
regard  for  liis  mj-stical,  physico-spiritual  presuppositions,  was  rather  inclined  to 
ascribe  this  office  to  the  deified  God-man  in  his  own  person.  On  the  mystical 
elements  of  Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Supper,  compare  also  Andre  Duran,  Le 
Mysticisme  de  Calvi;;,  pp.  62ff. 


\ 


58 

the  Saviour's  death  is  proclaimed,  is  at  the  same  time  a  symbol  of 
that  internal  act,  the  vmnducatio,  by  which  faith  appropriates  the 
blessings  of  salvation.  "These  two  (namely  manducatio  and 
commcmoraiio)  must  be  well  distinguished  m  a  divine  transaction 
and  not  be  confounded.  The  eating  takes  place  internally  and,  as 
has  been  said,  out  of  the  living  Word  of  God The  com- 
memoration takes  place  outwardly  in  the  breaking  of  the  bread  of 
the  Lord.  The  eating  precedes;  the  commemoration  and  thanks- 
gi-vang  follow.  He  who  has  not  eaten  and  had  enough  cannot  truly 
give  thanks."* 

The  external  rite,  then,  has  primarily  a  didactic  or  demonstrative 
value.f  "The  broken  bread  teaches,  explains,  and  represents  the 
nature  of  the  body  of  Clirist  that  was  given  and  broken  for  us."| 
Thus  the  external  rite,  though  clearly  subordinated  to  the  inner 
mystery,  nevertheless  performs  an  imi:)ortant  service.  § 

Obviously,  therefore,  the  real  question  concerns  the  nature  of 
this  act  of  manducationll  typified  in  the  outward  ordmance.  And 
here  the  significant  fact  is  to  be  noted  that,  contrarj'to  the  prevail- 
ing views  of  the  time,  Schwenckfeld  not  only  took  his  point  of  de- 
parture for  the  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution  from  the 
sixth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  accordmg  to  Jolm,  but  made  this  dis- 
course refer  directly  to  the  Lord's  Sui)per  as  the  fourth  evangelist's 
contribution  to  our  knowledge  of  the  eucharist.^  To  him  it  was 
no  accident  that  the  most  mystical  of  the  New  Testament  WTitings 
contained  the  key  to  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  festal 
' '  mysterium. '  '**  There  is  indeed  a  corporeal  or  carnal  eating  of  the 
physical  bread  itself;  but  there  are  no  two  ways — as  Luther  claimed 

*  B  131a.  Cf.  the  oft-repeaied  remark:  "  'Das  ist'  gehet  vor;  'das  thut' 
folget." 

t  Schwenckfeld  did  not  reject  ZwingU's  idea  that  the  sacraments  are  badges  of 
the  Christian  man's  faith.  But  he  had  too  little  interest  in  the  external  signifi- 
cance of  the  rites  to  emphasize  tliis  merely  professional  value. 

X  A  39Dd,  in  the  margin.  Cf.  Schenkel,  I.e.,  I,  560,  n.  1,  for  the  remarkably 
similar  view  of  Servetus. 

§  Cf.  A  S57b:  "Es  bringt  gemeldete  Rememoratio  oder  AViedergedachtnis  mit 
Ruminationem  el  rcpclitionem  omnium  hencficiorum  Cltrisli.  Ita  saturatur  fidelis 
anima  el  manducut  corpus  Clirisli  pro  se  tradiium  ct  bibit  sanguincm  pro  se  effusum." 

II  The  term  is  also  used  synecdochically  to  include  the  "drinking  of  the  blood" 
of  Christ. 

^i  Zwingli  of  course  had  insisted  upon  using  this  chapter  as  a  guide;  especially 
V.  63,  ' '  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing"  ;  but  he  did  not  suppose  that  the  passage  had 
a  primary  reference  to  the  Supper.  Cf.  Baur,  Zwinglis  Theologie,  II,  pp.  296  sqq., 
318,  592  et  passim. 

**  See  the  treatise,  Eine  sehOne  und  herrliche  Auslegung  vbcr  das  game  sechsle 
Capiiei  Jo)ui>inis  von  dcr  Speise  des  ewigcn  Lebens,  especially  pp.  126ff.  (ed.  1595). 


59 

there  are — in  which  the  body  of  Christ  can  be  eaten,  a  "spiritual" 
and  a  "sacramental"  majiducation.  For,  according  to  Schwenck- 
feld,  the  bod}'  of  Christ  is  a  purely  spiritual  food,  and  hence  whether 
it  be  eaten  in  the  sacrament  or,  as  was  possible,  apart  from  these 
elements,  the  process  must  be  a  spiritual  one.*  Wherever,  then, 
the  communicant  by  faith  appropriates  the  spiritual  realities 
present  to  the  believers  at  the  Lord's  table  and  typified  by  the 
sensible  signs,  he  is  eatmg  the  true  bread  of  life,  which  is  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  the  Son  of  God.  In  effect,  therefore,  Schwenckfeld 
here  concedes,  with  Zwingli  and  the  Eeformed  theologians,  that 
eating  is  a  tropical  expression  for  "believing."!  The  larger 
question  accordingly  becomes  the  more  precise  one:  What  are  the 
redemptive  benefits  which  faith  receives  in  the  Gospel,  whether  with 
or  without  the  use  of  the  sacraments? 

The  answers  are  given  in  various  terms.  In  the  following  passage, 
e.g.,  the  language  approximates  that  commonly  used  to  set  forth 
the  evangelical  conception  of  the  work  of  Christ:  "Therein,"  i.e., 
in  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  the  Cliristian  "receives  nothing 
other  than  di%Tne  righteousness,  grace,  the  Holy  Ghost,  forgiveness 
of  sins,  peace  of  conscience,  and  much  spiritual  joy  continually  in 

~  ^  heart He  who  receives  the    body  of   Cluist  tlu-ough 

T^eceives  also  the  Spirit  of  Clirist  who  keeps  urgmg  him  imto 
ai.  ^jfcd."!  At  other  times,  however,  we  haA'e  the  peculiar 
indefiniteness  of  his  mystical  or  physico-naturalistic  conception: 
"He  who  eats  the  flesh  of  Christ  partakes  of  the  divine  nature, 
flesh  of  flesh,  bone  of  bone.  He  who  eats  the  flesh  of  Chri.«t 
eats  life,  that  eternal  hfe  which  begins  in  man  here  and  pre- 
serves the  soul  from  eternal  death,  so  that  this  food  will  again 
produce  the  flesh  of  man,  in  a  glory  e^ual  to  that  of  the  soul,  at  the 
final  resurrection,  a:id  rescue  and  keep  body  and  soul  from  eternal 
death.  "§ 

*  Cf.  B  140  sg.  There  is  t)ierefore  no  unique  or  special  way  of  feeding  upon 
Christ  in  the  sacrament.  The  term  "sacramental  eating"  must  be  equated 
either  ■with  the  merely  physical  act  of  partaking  of  the  eucharistic  elements,  or 
else — it  is  after  all  only  a  question  of  the  absence  or  presence  of  faith — -nith  that 
spiritual  manducation  which  is,  according  to  Schwenckfeld,  the  only  possible  way 
of  feeding  upon  Christ's  "flesli." 

t  Of  course  Cahin  (Institutio,  IV,  c.  XVII,  5;  Allen's  translation,  II,  p.  529) 
regarded  the  eating  rather  as  a  "fruit  and  effect"  or  "consequence"  of  faith, 
though  he  admitted  that  the  manducation  can  be  bj-  faitli  only.  But  the  differ- 
ence between  Cal\-iii's  personal  \iews  and  those  of  the  Reformed  sjinbols  on 
this  point  is  a  negligible  quantity. 

t  A  331. 

{  Auslegung  des  scchsten  Capitds  Joh.,  p.  175.  Luther  himself  had  taught  that 
a  physical  or  magical  benefit  might  be  derived  from  the  eucharistic  meal  to  insure 


60 

It  is  possible,  however,  to  obtain  more  specific  answers  than  either 
of  these  to  the  question  concerning  the  blessings  received  bj'  faith, 
whether  in  the  use  of  the  Supper  or  not.  Our  limits  forbid  a  full 
discussion  of  Schwenckfeld's  soteriology,  but  it  is  necessary  to  set 
forth  at  least  the  general  prmciples  of  the  subject  as  they  bear  upon 
the  point  in  controversy. 

We  must  revert  to  the  basal  fact  of  the  two  so  diverse  estates  in 
which  the  Sa^'iour  performs  his  mediatorial  services;  in  other  words, 
the  central  importance  of  the  resurrection  of  Clu'ist  must  be  clearly 
apprehended.*  The  earthly  work  of  Jesus  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
basis  and  the  preparation  for  his  heavenly  work.  The  former  is  to 
be  designated  as  the  work  of  acquiring,  and  the  latter  as  the  work  of 
distributing,  the  redemptive  blessings. f  All  grace  is  therefore  now 
to  be  found  in  the  risen  and  glorified  Christ.  Sometimes,  mdeed, 
this  thought  is  presented  in  a  way  which  apparently'  robs  the  ob- 
jective atonement  of  its  intrinsic  value,  or  which,  to  speak  more 
positively  and  at  the  same  time  to  relate  the  fact  to  his  j^hilo- 
sophic  presuppositions,  apparently  transmutes  the  physical  reality 
of  the  Redeemer's  body  into  a  spiritual  substance  to  be  mediated 
to  the  believer  by  the  Holy  Sphit.i  Ordinarily,  however,  the  work 
I  of  Jesus  on  earth  is  regarded  rather  as  a  preparation  for  his  more 
important  service  in  heaven  as  ' '  the  ruling  King  of  grace. ' '  The 
centre  of  Schwenckfeld's  system  of  thought  must  unquestionabh'  be 
foimd  in  the  mediatorial  work  of  the  exalted,  i.e.,  the  completely 
deified  God-man.  §     From  this  pomt  of  "vnew  the  Gospel  message 


the  bodily  resurrection  at  the  last  day.  Cf.  Tliimme,  Keiie  Kirchliche  Zeitschrijt, 
1901,  p.  S90.  But  in  his  later  treatises  this  consideration  Tvas  not  dwelt  upon, 
a  point  which  Mviller  emphasiz'  in  his  endeavor  to  approximate  the  teacliings  of 
Luther  on  tliis  question  to  those  of  Cahin  (see  his  Dogmatischc  Abhandlungen,  p. 
417). 

*  On  tliis  general  subject,  see  D  239  sgq.,  465  sg.,  507,  527,  825  sg. 

t  For  the  proofs  we  may  refer  to  the  admirable  section,  ' '  De  opere  Christi, ' '  in 
Hahn,  I.e.,  pp.  52ff.  Besides  the  passages  there  cited,  see  D  103,  A  694,  861, 
and  B  591.  Luther  had  earlj-  developed  the  same  mode  of  representation.  See 
liis  Wider  die  himmlischen  Prophclen,  St.  Louis  edition,  XX,  col.  275:  "Von  der 
Vergebung  der  Siinden  handeln  -wir  auf  zwo  Weisen:  einmal  wie  sie  erlangt  und 
erworbcn  ist,  das  andermal  wie  sie  ausgetheilt  und  geschenkt  \\-ird." 

t  Cf.  A  69Gc,  C  943d. 

§  Schwenckfeld's  emphasis  upon  the  post-resurrection  actiWties  of  the  Lord 
contained  many  a  corrective  suggestion  for  the  one-sided  treatment  th^-t,  Luther, 
in  the  interests  of  his  forensic  justification,  was  prone  to  accord  to  the  '  Uily  life 
of  tlie  Saviour.  Schwenckfeld  made  much  of  the  two  texts:  "Jesus  ou  ird  .  .  . 
who  was  delivered  up  for  our  trespasses  and  was  raised  for  our  jui  iation" 
(Rom.  iv.  25),  and  "\\'herefore  we  henceforth  know  no  man  after  the  h:  even 
though  we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  we  know  him  so  no  more" 
<2  Cor.  v.  16).  On  the  common  perversion  of  this  last  text  l>y  mystical  interpre- 
ters, see  Inge,  Christian  Mysticism,  p.  69  sg. 


61 

is  represented  as  being  composed  of  two  unequal  but  vitallj'  con- 
nected portions.  There  is  tlie  milk  for  babes  and  the  strong  meat  for 
adults;  there  is  the  word  of  the  cross,  and  there  is  the  word  of  life. 
' '  The  sum  of  the  Gospel  is  in  the  Word  of  the  cross  and  the  Word 
of  life.  By  the  Word  of  the  cross  is  miderstood  the  entire  mj'stery  of 
the  crucified  Christ  and  the  entire  transaction  of  all  that  which 
Christ  the  eternal  Son  of  God  became  for  our  sakes,  that  he  accom- 
plished, earned,  and  effected  by  the  bitter  death  of  the  cross, 
namely,  his  salvation,  reconciliation,  self-sacrifice,  and  satisfaction 
for  sin  and  the  forgiveness  of  the  same;  while  the  Word  of  life 
denotes  the  whole  mystery  of  the  glorified  Christ  and  eternal  life^ 
the  whole  work  of  our  justification  and  salvation,  and  all  that 
Clirist  after  his  ascension  to  heaven  and  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
of  God  effects  in  believers  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  how  he 
after  accomplishing  our  salvation  upon  the  cross  now  brmgs  us  to 
his  lieaA-enly  kingdom  unto  eternal  salvation."* 

It  is  obvious  from  the  passage  just  cited  that  Schwenckfeld 
infused  a  new  meanmg  into  some  of  the  formulas  emploj'ed  to 
designate  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel.  The  peculiarities  of  his  sys- 
tem, from  this  point  of  view,  may  be  briefly  indicated  by  referring 
to  his  statements  concerning  the  three  specific  terms,  redemption 
\rldsung),  regeneration  (Wiedergeburt),  and  justification  {Gerecht- 

TJiung).'\ 

Redemption  is  primarily,  as  in  the  early  patristic  conception,  a 
deliA-erance  from  the  power  of  Satan.  By  his  death  on  the  cross 
Cln-ist  overcame  the  archfiend  of  the  human  race, J  and  by  his 
resurrection  he  made  it  possible  that  man,  having  been  freed  from 
the  dominion  of  the  devil,  should  become  positively  capable  of 
triumphmg  over  his  foes  by  virtue  of  a  gradual  deliverance  from 
the  estate  of  creaturehood  itself. § 

This  last  phase  of  redemption,  however,  belongs  rather  to  the 
specific  doctrine  of  regeneration.  And  here,  even  more  than  in 
the  case  of  the  somewhat  negative  consideration  of  our  bemg 
' '  bought  off ' '  from  Satan  by  the  ransom  of  the  divme  King's  life, 

*  D  34S  sgq.  Concerning  the  terms  "milk"  and  "strong  food,"  and  concern- 
ing the  insufficiency  of  the  former,  wliich  signified  only  a  historical  knowledge  of 
t!hrist,  and  the  absolutely  indispensable  character  of  the  latter  for  the  truly 
'  'spiritual  knowledge ' '  of  Christ,  see  C  89S,  D  280  sg.,  5&7  sgq.,  895  sgq.,  A  471-476. 

t  In  what  immediately  follows  we  are  drawing  from  Hahn,  op.  cit.,  51  sqq.,  who 
has  with  admirable  clearness,  brevity  and  accuracy  reproduced  Schwenckfeld's 
soteriological  principles. 

J  A  7iGc,  D  435,  403,  742f.     Cf.  Baur,  Lehrc  von  der  Versohnung,  p.  4G2u. 

§  D  467  sq. 


62 

the  emphasis  must  be  placed  upon  the  distributing,  as  distinguished 
from  the  acquiring,  activity  of  the  Redeemer,  i.e.,  upon  his 
heavenly  as  distinguished  from  his  earthly  work.  The  act  of  regen- 
eration or  "re-creation,"  whereby  the  believer  receives  the  divine 
principle  of  the  spiritual  life,  is  the  beginning  of  the  saving  process 
on  its  subjective  side.  It  would  be  easy,  of  course,  to  cite  passages 
which,  taken  apart  from  their  contexts  and  from  the  philosophic 
presuppositions  upon  which  they  are  based,  would  appear  to  be  in 
fair  harmony  with  the  general  evangelical  or  Protestant  view  of  his 
opponents  concerning  the  uiitial  act  in  the  salvation  of  man.  The 
following  is  a  typical  deliverance  of  this  sort:  "Thus  regeneration 
is  an  mcipient  work  of  God,  which  he  of  his  pure  grace  and  mercy 
performs  without  any  merit  on  our  part  in  dead,  corrupt  man  for  his 
quickening,  righteousness,  and  salvation;  in  which  work  God  the 
merciful  awakens  man  from  spiritual  death  tln-ough  his  living 
Word,  Jesus  Christ,  changes  the  old  nature  with  a  heavenly  new- 
ness, converts  the  sinner,  begets  for  himself  children  and  heirs  of  his 
kingdom;  m  which  he  also  grants  ears  to  hear,  eyes  to  see,  and  an 
open  heart  to  understand,  and  through  Jesus  Clirist  in  the  Holy 
Spirit  makes  the  evil  and  imrighteous  man  pious,  holy,  and  right- 
eous."* But  the  rationale  of  this  regenerative  process  clearly 
evinces  the  extent  to  which  Schwenckfeld  compromised  his  biblical 
formulas  with  his  spiritualistic  principles.  This  will  become  the 
more  evident  when  we  interrogate  him  on  the  question  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  for  him,  no  less  than  for  Luther,  central 
in  the  practical  religious  life  of  that  daj' — the  question  of 
"justification  by  faith."  For  it  was  precisely  in  his  conception  of 
both  "justification"  and  ''faith"  that  Schwenckfeld  developed 
to  their  logical  consequences  the  essentially  "mystical"  principles 
of  his  system. 

To  be  sure,  he  sought  here  as  elsewhere  to  defend  himself  against 
the  logic  of  his  novel  assertions.  Therefore,  on  the  one  hand,  he 
rejected  altogether  the  Romish  idea  of  meritorious  works,t  and,  on 
the  other,  he  sought  to  concede  as  much  as  pos.sible  to  Luther's 
doctrme  of  forensic  justification.  He  made  much  of  the  passion 
and  death  of  Christ  as  the  only  ground  of  our  reconciliation  with 
God.  Such  language  as  the  following  is  by  no  means  exceptional: 
' '  This  indeed  is  the  joy  of  our  hearts,  that  if  we  in  faith  think  of  his 
satisfaction,  om-  consciences  are  quieted  and  put  at  ease.    And  to 

*  D  GOGa.     Cf.  the  whole  section,  Was  ist  dcnn  eigenilich  die  Wicdergeb'^rfr  und 
wohei  soil  sie  erkannt  wcrdent 
t  See,  e.g.,  D  G53,  G.-)7. 


68 

celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  eat  and  drink  his  blood,  signifies  the 
awakening  of  the  believing  hearts  by  the  Spirit,  so  that  the}'  per- 
ceive the  benefits  of  Christ,  remember,  inwardly  experience,  SJid 
consider  them,  and  with  hearty  thanks  put  his  wounds  upon  their 
womided  souls  and  consciences  as  a  salutary  plaster."*  The 
blood  of  Christ  is  the  pledge  of  our  redemption.!  The  Saviour  died, 
the  just  for  the  unjust,  having  become  a  curse  for  us.f  It  is  there- 
fore an  erroneous  representation  which  declares  that  Schwenckfeld 
absolutely  denied  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ.  §  The  fol- 
lowing citation  may  serve  to  show  how  freely  Schwenckfeld  could 
use  the  orthodox  phrases:  "The  righteousness  of  God  is  nothing 
but  the  perceiving,  grasping,  and  appropriating  of  such  grace  in 

Christ  through  faith Only  that   grace   purifies  by  which 

our  sins  are  not  imputed  to  us.  "|| 

But  if  Schwenckfeld  did  not  in  practice  deny  imputed  righteous- 
ness to  the  believing  sinner,  yet  in  theory,  that  is  by  the  logic  of 
his  sj'stem,  he  was  compelled  to  do  so.  The  historical  situation 
had  here,  too,  done  its  part  to  force  him  into  an  extreme  position 
where,  in  spite  of  his  good  intentions,  he  could  not  maintain  him- 
self in  harmony  with  the  Protestant  leaders.^    In  his  eagerness  to 

*  A  379b ;  cf .  A  243,  269. 

t  A  301b,  D  460.  To  be  quite  accurate,  however,  it  must  be  added  that  the 
;  '        \c  bloodsliedding  is  always  to  be  followed  by  the  '  'spiritual ' '  effusion  of  tlie 

jr's  blood  in  his  heavenly  acti\ities.     Cf.  D  102  sqq.,  2S7,  and  C  943. 

^b,  301a,  2S9d. 

iur,  e.g.  {Lehrc  von  der  VersOhnung,  p.  462),  says  Schwenckfeld  sub- 
stituted essential  for  imputed  righteousness.  RitscU  (Rechtfertigung  u.  Ver- 
sOhnung, P,  p.  319)  likewise  asserts,  "dass  Schwenckfeld  von  einer  angerechneten 
Gerechtigkeit  nichts  wissen  woUte."  But  Halm,  I.e.,  pp.  61ff.,  gives  a  more 
accurate  statement.  In  strict  consistency  Schwenckfeld  oug)it  to  have  denied 
all  imputed  righteousness;  but  aD  attempts  thus  to  measure  liim  by  the  test  of 
other  fixed  systems  of  theological  opinion  .re  sure  to  do  the  reformer  injustice  by 
failing  to  take  account  of  some  minor  yet  most  liighly  characteristic  and  therefore 
important  details.  Consider,  e.g.,  the  following  statement,  quoted  b}-  Halm  from 
A  283:  "Siehe  Rom.  14;  was  unsere  Gerechtigkeit  sei,  und  dass  der  aUein  gerecht 
ist,  welchem  um  des  Glaubens  Christi  willen  seine  Sunden  nicht  werden  zugerech- 
net.  Christo  wurden  unsere  Sunden  zugerechnet,  da  er  fur  uns  am  Ivreuz  eine 
Maledeiung  ward,  des  geuiessen  wir  nocli  heute."  Dorner  {Gesc)iichte  d.  prot. 
Theologie,  p.  17S)  gives  a  characteristically  fair  judgment:  "i^'jenso  will  er  zwar 
Christi  Leiden  ganz  und  gar  mit  der  Kirche  seine  versolmendc  I3edeutung  lassen ; 
aber  eriunert,  dass  man  nicht  scheiden  durfe  zmschen  Cliristi  Person  und 
Verdienst." 

|]  \  S.     Cf.  Sclienkel,  Das  Wesen,  etc.,  II,  2S7. 

^  Cf.  Erbkani,  Gescliichic  d.  prot.  Scklcn,  pp.  437  sgq.,  for  a  criticism  of  the 
popular  Lutheran  conception  of  justification  b}'  faith.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  much  occasion  for  offense  was  given  by  the  new  "indulgences"  to  be 
obtained  from  unworthy  Lutheran  pastors  in  connection  ■with  the  administration 
of  the  Lord's  Sufper.     Cf.  A  411b,  and  DoUinger,  Die  Rejormation,  I,  257ff. 


64 

magnify  the  grace  of  Christ  as  against  all  religious  externalities, 
and  especially  because  of  his  zeal  for  the  fruits  of  faith  in  holy  living, 
he  not  only  widened  the  idea  of  justification  so  as  to  make  it  include 
sanctification,  but  also,  as  avc  shall  have  occasion  presentlj^  to  ob- 
serve, deepened  the  conception  of  faith  so  as  to  make  it  a  sub- 
stantial, we  maj-  even  saj'  a  physic o-spiritual,  bond  between  the 
righteous  God  and  the  sinful  soul.     We  read:  "In  fine,  we  are 
assured  by  Holy  Scripture,  thanks  be  to  God,  that  justificaiio  in 
Paul  denotes  a  making  righteous;  justificarc,  to  make  righteous; 
and  jiistida  Dei,  the  righteousness  of  God,  that  is,  the  goodness  and 
godliness  of  the  faithful  God,  which  he  here  imparts  to  his  elect  by 
faith  through  Clirist  in  the  Holy  Spuit."*     Once  more  all  stress  is 
laid  upon  the  mediatorial   reign  of  Christ  in  his   exaltation  and 
glory.     In  fact  the  primarj'  difference  between  his  and  the  orthodox 
view  of  justification  concerns  the  basis  or  gromid,  rather  than  the 
mere  extent,  of  this  act,  or,  as  he  would  prefer  to  say,  this  work. 
"And  m  short  we  must  not  seek  our  becoming  righteous  and  our 
righteousness  in  Clirist  according  to  his  (earthly)  estate  hi  a  purely 
historical  manner,  but  according  to  his  other  estate,  wherein  he  has 
now  been  glorified  and  eternally  equipped  and  appointed  by  God 
the  Father  to  be  the  dispenser  of  the  heavenly  blessings  and  the 
head  of  the  Church. '  'f    Schwenckfeld  at  times  bravely  endeavored 
to  preserve  the  truth  of  the  forensic  conception  and  its  correlate,  the 
doctrhie  of  an  imputed  righteousness,  yet  the  logic  of  his  system, 
the  consequence  of  his  central  idea  of  the  deification  of  Christ's 
flesh  as  the  uidispensable  bond  of  imion  between  the  creature  and 
the  holy  Creator,  compelled  him  to  admit:  "God  considers  no  one 
righteous  in  whom  there  is  nothing  at  all  of  his  essential  righteous- 
ness. "J     AVhile ,  therefore,  he  had  a  profoundly  ethical  view  of  sin 
and  of  the  need  of  its  e.'^piation,  he  was  yet  more  concerned  for  the 
subjective  appropriation  of  divine  grace  than  for  the  merely  ob- 
jective and  forensic  act  whereby,  according  to  his  opponents,  guilt 
is  remitted  and  a  title  to  eternal  life  is  granted  to  the  believer.  § 

*  D  484f.  For  Schwenckfeld's  conception  of  faith,  see  pp.  09  sgq. 
t  D  4S5.  Cf.  Hahn,  I.e.,  p.  04:  "Itaque  solum  glorificatum  Christum  putavit 
justificationis  nostrip  f undamcntura. ' '  On  the  similarity  in  this  and  other  respects 
between  Schwenckfeld  and  Osiander,  as  well  as  for  the  differences  between  the 
two,  see  Hahn.  ibid.,  pp.  0.3-70;  Erbkum,  I.e.,  p.  443;  Baur,  LcIitc  von  dcr  Ver- 
sohtiung,  pp.  32GfT.,  340fT.;  and  Schwenckfeld,  C  942  sq.  J  A  S12c. 

§  It  is  perfectly  in  accord  -nith  the  facts,  therefore,  when  Halin  (^c,  p.  5.5,  n.  3) 
and  RitsclJ  {Rechtjertigung  iind  Versohnung,  V,  p.  318)  declare  that  the  idea  of 
expiation  is  one  that  does  not  harmonize  with  Schwenckfeld's  mystical  principles. 
He  retained  the  current  biblical  formulas,  but  infused  into  them  a  characteristic 
physico-epiritual  content. 


65 

It  is  not  necessary  for  our  puipose  to  dwell  upon  the  subsidiary 
featu]-es  of  Schwenckfeld's  conception  of  the  natuie  of  justifica- 
tion. He  has  often  been  accused  of  reverting  to  Catholicism  in  his 
discussion  of  the  need  and  importance  of  good  works.  But  the 
charge  is  ill  foimded.  He  was  neither  a  legalist  nor  a  perfectionist. 
Such  w^s  his  conviction  of  the  estrangement  between  the  creature 
and  the  Creator  that  even  the  regenerated  soul  can  do  nothing  to 
merit  the  divme  favor,  nor  can  it  ever  in  this  life  reach  a  point 
where  it  is  absolutely  free  from  the  defilement  and  bondage  of  sin. 
In  these  matters,  indeed,  Schwenckfeld  may  be  said  to  have  equaled 
an)'  of  his  contemporaries  in  sobriety  of  judgment  and  keenness  of 
insight  into  the  biblical  data  concerning  the  relations  of  faith  and 
works.*  He  therefore  did  not  purpose  to  deny  the  orthodox  doc- 
trmes  of  the  imputed  righteousness  and  the  vicariousness  of  Christ's 
death,  nor  had  he  any  deshe,  with  his  emphasis  on  the  need  of  holy 
living,  to  countenance  the  Romish  idea  of  the  meritorious  char- 
acter of  good  works.  The  fact  is  that  he  simply  used  the  term 
justification,  as  Luther  himself  had  done,t  m  the  double  sense  of 
declaring  and  makmg  righteous;  but  that,  ui  accordance  with  his 
spiritualistic  tendency,  he  laid  primary  stress  upon  the  latter  factor. 
In  short,  he  widened  the  application  of  the  word  to  the  whole  pro- 
cess of  salvation,  mcluding  that  which  to  him  was  the  basal  con- 
sideration, the  redemption  from  creaturehood  itself.  Sanctifica- 
tion  is  only  another  name  for  the  same  gradual  transformation. f 

*  Cf.  the  verdict  of  Schenkel,  Das  Wcscn  dcs  Prot.,  II,  520.  It  is  true  that 
Schwenckfeld  speaks  much  of  the  rewards  of  Cliristian  ser\-ice,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  no  reformer  recognized  more  clearly  than  he  did  the  all-sufficiency  and  the 
absolutely  exclusive  merit  of  the  Redeemer's  work.  Even  our  own  good  deeds 
are  in  reality  nothing  but  the  manifestations  of  the  life  of  God  -n-ithin  the  soul. 
Christ  is  himself  the  merit  of  our  good  works.  See  The  Threefold  Life  of  Man, 
Anspach's  Tianslation,  Ch.  XXX,  p.  Ill,  "How  the  ^Vo^d,  the  Reward  and 
Merit  of  Good  Works  are  to  be  properly  adjudged  and  understood."  The  For- 
vnila  Concordia:  {Epitome,  .\rt.  XII;  in  Schaff,  Creeds,  etc.,  Ill,  p.  17S)  clearly 
reveals  the  influence  of  Schwcnckfcld's  antagonists,  -Ajidrea  and  Flacius,  when  it 
represents  him  as  saying:  "Quod  homo  plus,  vere  per  Spiritum  Dei  regeneratus, 
legem  Dei  in  hac  vita  perfccte  servare  et  implere  valeat."  Kurtz,  I.e.,  p.  1.50 
repeats  the  unjust  charge.  It  is  true  that  Schwenckfeld  made  much  of  the  text, 
"\A'hoso  abideth  in  him  sinncth  not"  (1  John  iii.  5),  and  dehglited  in  the  paradox, 
"Cliristiaus  have  sin,  yet  sin  not"  (e.g.,  A  209a) ;  but  the  context  always  explains' 
such  declarations  in  harmony  vriXh  the  constantly  recurring  principle:  "We  never 
Lve  without  sin  before  God"  (.V  379a).  Even  Planck,  accordingly,  charges  the 
Lutheran  di\-ines  with  cliicanery  and  falsehood  in  tliis  matter  {Gesehichle  der 
Entstehung,  etc.,  Vol.  V,  1,  p.  221). 

t  Cf.  Loofs,  Dogmengcschichtc',  p.  351  sgq.,  and  Otto,  Anscluxuung  vom  lieiligen 
Geiste  bei  Luther,  p.  27f . 

t  Cf.  D  725c,  in  margin:  "Die  Justificatio  ist  nicht  allciu  Vergebung  der  Sunden, 
sondern  auch  die  Heiligung  und  Erneuerung  des  inncrlichen  Menschen  " 
6 


66 

Indeed,  even  the  more  restricted  term  "pardon"  is  likewise 
stretched  far  beyond  its  usual  limits,*  and  made  to  designate  the 
actual  removal  of  the  suis  and  even  the  totalit}'  of  redemptive 
blessings. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  the  characteristic  features  of  Schwenckfeld's 
conception  of  the  mode  of  salvation,  and  therefore  also  of  the  nature 
of  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  a  right  use  of  the  sacramental 
Sujjper,  must  be  sought,  not  so  much  in  his  polemic  statements 
against  his  opponents — for  he  largely  used  theu-  own  and  the 
biblical  formulas — as  in  the  elaboration  of  his  positive  \iews  con- 
cerning the  very  essence  of  Christianity.  We  do  not  come  to  the 
heart  of  the  matter,  therefore,  until,  regardless  of  his  frequent 
attempts  to  harmonize  his  speculations  with  the  more  usual  mter- 
pretations  of  Scripture  then  in  vogue,  we  fully  apprehend  the 
essentially  mystical  or  magical  mode  in  which  he  conceived  the 
process  of  salvation.  Along  the  periphery  of  his  theologizing,  to 
be  svu-e,  he  ever  took  pains  to  avoid  the  extremes  of  the  more 
radical  subjectivism  of  that  day,  and  even  at  the  expense  of  self- 
consistency  he  strove,  as  we  have  seen,  to  take  more  thoroughly 
conservative  views  of  the  Word,  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Sacra- 
ments than  his  philosophic  presuppositions  strictly  warranted. 
But  at  the  centre  and  core  of  his  system  of  thought,  and  in  the  very 
heart  of  his  practical  piety,  he  reveals  the  characteristics  of  a 
genuine  Protestant  mysticism.  It  is  necessary,  in  conclusion, 
therefore,  to  ascertaui  the  precise  nature  of  the  causes  that  made 
him  take,  so  far  as  the  question  of  the  sacred  Supper  is  concerned, 
the  mediating  and  unstable,  because  not  strictly  logical,  position 
he  assumed.  We  have  still  to  learn  the  deepest  meanmg  of  the 
correlative  terms  "justification"  and  "faith." 

It  cannot  be  too  sharply  emphasized,  then,  that  however  dili- 
gently Schwenckfeld  strove  to  get  scriptural  warrant  for  his  views 
and  to  accommodate  himself  to  the  new  formulas  of  the  Protestant 
theology,  he  taught  an  essentially  physico-spu-itual  salvation,  in 
which  the  communication  of  the  divine  life  as  a  substantive  prin- 
ciple must  be  magically  effected. 

*D921d,  922:  "Wasist  aber  Vergebung  der  SUnden  fur  ein  Ding?  Antwort: 
esistnichallcineinNiclitzurechnungderSiinden  ....  niclit  allein  eine  guadige, 
barmhcrzige  NaclJassung  der  Strafe  Gottes,  so  wir  durch  die  Siinde  und  Unge- 
liorsam  vor  Gott  wohl  verschuldet  haben;  sondern  es  ist  auch  ein  Toten,  Abtilgen, 
und  Hinnelimen  der  Sundeii  vom  Herzcn  und  Gewissen  ....  Da  ist  die  Sunde 
mit  ilirer  Mage  tod,  ja  vor  Gott  hinwcg  und  abgetilgt,  das  Herz  ist  gereinigt,  und 
zur  Einwolinung  dor  heiligen  Dreifaltigkeit  zubereitet,  dass  auch  der  Menscli,  der 
in  Christo  blcibct,  alsdann  weder  den  ewigen  Tod,  der  Sunden  Sold  ist,  noch  das 
hoUisclie  Fcuer,  welclies  ihre  Strafe  ist,  nielit  niehr  darf  furcliten." 


67 

In  spite  of  all  that  has  been  said,  therefore,  to  show  that  he  in 
explicit  terms  admitted  the  traditional  views  concerning  the  vicari- 
ous atonement  as  a  basis  for  the  imputation  of  Clirist's  righteous- 
ness, we  must  be  prepared  to  find  a  disturbing  stress  laid  upon  the 
inward  subjective  appropriation  of  the  divine-human  essence  of 
the  Redeemer  himself.  The  Word  must  become  "spirit-flesh"  in 
ever}'  believer.  "It  is  therefore  not  enough  that  we  believe  that 
the  Word  has  become  flesh,  but  we  must  also  believe  that  it  still 
for  Christ"b'sake  becomes  flesh.  I  repeat,  we  must  know  not  only 
that  Jesus  Christ  then  came  into  the  flesh,  but  that  even  to-day  he 
by  reason  of  his  holy  and  glorified  flesh  comes  into  all  other  flesh 
which  receives  him  in  faith,  and  that  he  regenerates  this,  leads  it  by 
the  Spirit,  and  makes  it  a  child  of  God."*  Christ,  then,  is  to  be 
born  and  fashioned  anew  in  every  soul  that  is  to  be  redeemed. 
But  this  language  is  for  Schwenckfeld  no  mere  metaphor.  Such 
is  his  conception  of  salvation,  that  the  whole  process  appears  as  a 
realistic  transformation  of  the  natural  man,  body  and  soul,  into 
an  ever-increasing  likeness  to  the  deified  hmnanit}'  of  Christ,  the 
goal  being  such  a  participation  in  the  divme  essence  that  the  sinner 
himself  is  divmitized.f 

The  details  of  the  process  are  worked  out  with  more  or  less  in- 
genuity m  the  adaptation  of  the  theory  to  the  biblical  data.     The 

*  A  517b.  Cf.  the  marginal  caption,  "Wie  das  Wort  noch  heute  in  den  Glau- 
bigen  gcistliches  Fleisch  werde." 

t  Sucli  at  least  is  the  ob\'ious  import  of  the  strong  language  sometimes  em- 
ployed. Cf.  D  142:  "So  konnten  sie  [liis  Lutheran  opponents]  aus  der  Gnaden 
Gottes,  auch  mit  der  Schrift  Zeugnis,  den  allerteuersten  'Wechsel  bald  finden,  dass 
Gott  drum  sei  Mensch  worden,  auf  das  der  Mensch  wiederum  Gott  wurde  in  Chris  to 
unserm  Herrn."  Cf.  the  plirase  in  D  S56c,  "je  langer  je  mehr  vergoUet."  It 
must  immediately  be  added,  however,  that  Schwenckfeld  did  not  purpose  to  be 
a  pantheist.  His  conception  of  God  is  too  personal,  too  ethical,  to  permit  such 
an  interpretation.  He  reveals  even  in  the  immediate  contexts  of  such  passages 
as  we  have  just  referred  to  his  fundamentally  practical  and  moral  aim;  "ver- 
gottet,"  after  all,  means  only  "geistUch  und  heil  gemacht  zur  volhgen  Gesund- 
heit. "  We  have  here  another  illustration  of  the  danger  of  magnifj-ing  the 
speculative  at  the  expense  of  the  rehgious  and  ethical  element  in  Schwenckfeld. 
Pliilosopliically,  indeed,  he  may  be  said  to  overcome  his  dualism  by  pantheistic- 
ally  transcending  it.  But  in  the  adjustment  of  his  basal  principles  to  his  bibhcal 
exegesis  he  resolutely  avoids  the  unethical  conclusions  to  which  his  speculations 
would  lead.  He  made  much  of  St.  Peter's  phrase  concerning  our  becoming  "par- 
takers of  the  divine  nature"  (2  Peter  i.  4),  but  he  had  just  as  little  intention  as  the 
apostle  had  of  countenancing  pantheism.  Tlie  most  that  can  be  said  against  him  , 
from  tliis  point  of  ^•iew,  is  that  he  at  times  used  forms  of  speech  whicli,  if  not  con- 
strued in  the  light  of  his  considerations  for  the  practic.il  religious  life,  would  in- 
e^■itably  lead  to  pantheism.  Cf.  A  2SGd,  where  he  explicitly  attacks  Sebastian 
Franck's  genuinely  pantheistic  utterances  concerning  the  indwclhng  of  the  Word 
of  God,  the  divine  seed,  in  all  men. 


6S 

first  stage  of  the  development  i?  that  whereby  "Christ  is  con- 
ceived and  born  in  us  by  faith."*  This  is  the  begmnmg  of  the 
Christian  experience,  the  da-mi  m  the  heart  of  the  spu-itual  Ught 
necessary  to  apprehend  the  Redeemer  in  his  true  worth.  This  he 
also  designates  the  "regeneration"  of  the  sinner,  which,  it  will  be 
remembered,  he  made  to  consist  of  a  supernatural  or  creative  act, 
wht  reby  the  prmciple  of  sonship  is  implanted  in  the  creature  in 
order,  by  a  process  of  mner  transformation,  to  bring  him  completely 
into  the  estate  of  gi-ace.  The  second  stage  is  that  of  conformity  to 
Christ,  "which  the  Holy  Spu-it  by  faith  effects  m  the  members  of  his 
body,  and  it  is  the  whole  life  of  Christ  m  the  flesh,  with  his  doctrine, 
mu-acles,  and  benefits,  ....  so  that  Christ  becomes  strong  in  us, 
and  we  more  and  more  faithfully  follow  him  in  his  walk  and  life  by 
means  of  the  proffered  grace."  The  third  stage  pertains  to  the 
' '  crucifixion  of  Christ  in  us, ' '  which  is  to  be  imderstood  both  of  the 
trials  and  hardships  imposed  upon  the  Clu'istians  by  the  world  and 
of  the  never-ceasmg  warfare  between  the  flesh  and  the  Spirit.  The 
fourth  stage,  "that  Christ  is  buried  m  us,"  constitutes  the  factory 
of  the  Spirit  over  the  world  and  the  flesh  and  the  devil.t  The  fifth 
stage  is  the  resurrection  of  Clirist  within  us,  when  he  fully  triumphs 
in  our  lives  and  renders  it  impossible  for  us  to  be  permanently 
estranged  from  the  Lord.J  The  sixth  stage,  that  of  the  ' '  ascension 
of  Clu-ist  within  us, ' '  denotes  the  continual  upward  drawing  of  the 
heart  to  the  affair's  of  its  heavenly  citizen.ship.  The  final  or  seventh 
stage  is  "that  Christ  in  us  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  his  heavenly 
Father. ' '  Here  ' '  man  often  learns  more  in  one  hour,  when  he  is 
drawn  rapturously  to  this  point,  than  otherwise  in  much  time;  here 
we  only  begin  to  know  the  glory,  honor,  might  and  power  of  the 
man,  yea  of  the  flesh  of  Je.sus  Clu-ist  accorduig  to  the  Spirit,  through 
which  merit  and  glory  all  these  gifts  are  granted  to  our  poor  flesh. ' ' 
It  may  be  supposed  that  this  is  but  pictorial  language,  to  set 
forth  with  realistic  force  the  shiner's  need  of  apprehending  the 
whcle  objective  work  of  Clirist,  from  its  first  inception  in  the  incar- 
nation itself  to  its  unending  activity  in  the  mediatorial  reign  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  And  doubtless  m  many  passages  that  speak 
of  the  indwelling  and  informing  Christ  the  ^Titcr  meant  no  more 

*  In  what  immediately  follows  we  draw  from  the  cViief  pa-ssape  on  the  subject, 
v.  522-532,  Vom  Geheimni!:  der  ganzen  Ausjuhnrng  Christi,  wic  vnser  Fleisch  aus 
Giindni  mil  ihm  in  cine  GemeinscJuift  komme. 

t  The  more  accurate  designation,  "our  being  buried  in  Christ,"  is  also  used. 

J  In  tliis  connection  tlie  fact  is  emphasized  that,  bo  far  as  the  time  element  is 
concerned,  the  various  stages  may  follow  one  another  in  quick  succession  or  after 
long  intervals. 


than  Christians  have  ever  understood  by  those  terms,  which  identify 
the  hfe-process  itself  in  the  redeemed  soul  with  Christ,  its  author, 
its  object,  and  its  end.  But,  as  a  rule,  there  is  something  deeper, 
something  more  substantial,  something  genuinely  mystical  em- 
bodied in  these  fanciful  formulas.  More  and  more  the  Christian  is 
dominated  by  the  life  which,  emanating  in  a  concrete  manner  from 
the  deified  flesh  of  the  Redeemer,  implants  its  essential  principle 
in  the  sumer.  The  substance  of  God  himself  is  communicated  from 
the  glorified  humanity  of  Christ.* 

The  practical  question  for  us  in  this  comiection,  therefore,  is 
that  concerning  the  mode  ui  which  these  physico-spu-itual  blessings 
are  conferred  upon  the  Christian  in  the  Supper.  The  answer  is  the 
thoroughly  conventional  one,  that  the  bestowal  and  reception  of 
grace,  whether  in  the  sacraments  or  apart  from  them,  is  all  a  matter 
of  faith.  Manifestly,  then,  Schwenckfeld  ought  to  give  a  scientific 
vmdication  of  faith  as  the  instrument  whereby  the  soul  receives  her 
spu-itual  gifts.  But  this  is  precisely  where  he  utterly  fails  to  bring 
his  philosophic  presuppositions  into  harmony  with  the  practical 
exigencies  of  his  religious  teaching.  Faith  is  to  serve,  as  we  have 
seen,  as  the  nexus  between  the  outer  ceremonial  rite  and  the  inward 
or  truly  sacramental  transaction.  But  what  dialectic  connection 
is  effected  by  the  use  of  this  pre-eminently  scriptural  term?  How 
does  faith,  coming  to  the  Lord's  table,  receive  from  the  consecrated 
elements  a  spiritual  gift?  Or,  once  more  to  reduce  the  matter  to 
the  largest  common  denominator,  how  does  faith  ever  appropriate 
Christ? 

The  problem,  by  reason  of  its  practical  importance,  often  pressed 
itself  upon  the  reformer's  attention.  But  his  laborious  efforts 
toward  its  solution  amount  in  effect  only  to  an  ingenious  pelitio 
priyicipii.  The  central  significance  of  this  Cliristian  \-irtue  of 
faith  is,  indeed,  clearly  apprehended;  but  there  is  no  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  function  which,  according  to  the  logic  of  his 
system,  faith  must  needs  perform.  Never  having  fully  grasped 
that  profoundly  religious  and  ethical  conception  of  the  term  which 

*  Cf.  .\  027d,  where  tlie  "gottlich,  gcistlich  Wesen"  acquired  by  Christ  after 
his  resurrection  is  represented  as  being  imparted  to  the  believer  at  the  beginning  of 
his  hfe  of  faith.  A  831b  even  speaks  of  Cliristians  becoming  gods  by  \irtue  of  the 
fullness  of  the  divine  hfe  implanted  in  them.  In  D  379a,  Schwenckfeld  speaks  of 
the  virtues  of  the  Christian  character  as  being,  "in  a  measure  and  in  part,  by 
grace,  that  which  God  is  naturally,  and  in  the  totality,  and  in  perfect  fullness  " 
The  biblical  "indwelling  of  the  Spirit"  is  made  to  signify  a  deification  of  the 
human  soul  or  its  participation  in  the  divine  essence  (ibid.). 


70 

his  spiritual  father  Luther  had  acquired  in  the  course  of  an  extra- 
ordinary experience  of  the  grace  of  God,  Schwenckfeld,  ui  his  zeal  to 
refute  what  was  after  all  only  a  caricature  of  the  evangelical  vieM-  of 
faith,  succumbed  to  the  temptation  of  going  to  the  opposite  ex- 
treme of  fairly  annihilating  the  ethical  and  religious  factors  in  the 
process  of  salvation.  Notliing  indeed  was  farther  from  his  de- 
liberate intention:  his  conceptions  of  God  and  man,  of  holiness 
and  sin,  reveal  a  sufficiently  clear  apprehension  of  the  moral  qual- 
ity pertaining  to  freedom  of  choice.  But  his  theory  of  the 
nature  and  function  of  the  concrete,  phj'sico-spu'itual  substance  of 
the  deified  flesh  of  Clirist  had  such  a  determining  mfluence  upon  his 
speculations  that,  in  spite  of  his  eff'orts  to  cast  his  thought  into 
biblical  moulds,  and  in  spite  of  his  meritorious  services  in  criticising 
the  ethicarsliortcomings  of  mismiderstood  and  misapplied  evangel- 
icalism, he  himself  could  not,  except  by  occasionally  departing  from 
his  own  premises  in  the  interests  of  his  ardent  piety,  vindicate  for 
personal  faith  a  genuinely  religious  and  ethical  significance.  His 
"spiritual"  knowledge  of  Christ  is  after  all  no  real  knowledge:  it  is 
at  best  a  consciousness,  a  feeling;  it  cannot,  or  at  least  it  does  not, 
establish  its  claims  by  any  dialectic  addressed  to  reason.  In  his 
own  case,  indeed,  his  "faith"  worked  beautifully  by  love;  it  filled 
the  heart  of  the  persecuted  man  with  the  holy  confidence  and 
gladness  that  inspired  the  noble  motto,  "Nil  triste,  Chrisio  recepio." 
Above  all  ascetic  weakness,  he  took  a  serious  yet  thoroughly  sane 
\aew  of  the  things  of  time  and  sense;  free  likewise  from  the  ecstatic 
elations  of  the  professed  mystic,  he  yet  hoped  intently  for  the 
blessed  consummation  of  the  heavenly  kingdom.  But  his  faith, 
real,  ardent,  mighty  as  it  must  have  been  in  his  o-«-n  experience, 
could  not  give  any  rational  account  of  the  high  prerogatives  it 
claimed  for  itself.  It  was  somehow  to  serve  as  the  means  whereby 
the  soul  must  come  into  the  possession  of  her  spiritual  treasures; 
but  in  the  confessedly  difficult  subject  of  the  psychology  of  faith  he 
found  it  impossible,  in  spite  of  his  numerous  biblical  citations,  to 
remove  or  conceal  his  dialectic  embarra.«sment.  A  few  passages 
from  his  works  will  show  the  magnitude  of  his  difficulty. 

He  never  wearies  of  imputuig  to  his  opponents  a  purely ' '  historic" 
or  rationalistic,  as  distinguished  from  a  "true"  or  "sphituai," 
faith.  "The  Lutherans,"  we  are  told,  have  a  historical  Christ 
whom  they  know  according  to  the  letter,  according  to  the  events  of 
his  life,  his  teachings,  miracles,  and  deeds,  not  as  he  to-day  lives 
and  works;  just  as  they  have  a  historical  rationalistic  faith  {Ver- 
nunjlglauhen)  and  a  historical  justification,  which  they  base  upon 


the  promises,  no  matter  to  whom  they  belong.*  He  insists  that  his 
critics  make  too  marked  a  separation  between  their  creed  and 
their  conduct.!  They  have  only  the  faith  that  may  come  from 
a  knowledge  of  the  letter  of  Scripture,  not  the  faith  that  comes  only 
from  the  hearing  of  the  mner  'Word.l  They  fail  to  realize  the 
difference  between  a  dead  faith  and  a  vitalizing  knowledge  of  the 
Redeemer.  They  look  too  much  to  mere  ceremonial  rites,  and  not 
enough  to  Christ  the  "ruling  King  of  gi-ace."§ 

But  if  it  is  only  just  to  make  some  concessions  to^Schwenckfcld  so 
fa/  as  his  general  criticism  of  his  opponents  is  concerned,  his  o^ti 
positive  or  constructive  views  of  faith  are  altogether  unsatisfactory. 
For  we  must  not  permit  ourselves  to  be  deceived  bj'  the  apparent 
scripturalness  of  his  statements  that  faith  is  a  gift,  and  that  as  such 
it  is  mediated  to  the  sinful  soul  directly  by  the  di^'ine-human 
Redeemer.  Schwenckfeld  gives  these  assertions  a  far  different 
significance  from  that  ordinarily  connected  with  them.  To  him 
faith  is  a  real,  substantive  ]5rinciple.  It  is,  m  a  word,  a  portion  of 
the  very  being  of  God.  ' '  Now  therefore  true  faith  is  a  gift  of  God, 
a  present  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  fundamentally  {im  Grundc)  one 
essence  with  him  who  gives  and  presents  it ;  a  co-partner  (Mit- 
genosse)  with  him  who  does  and  works  all  things;  a  beam  of  the 
eternal  sun.  It  is  a  little  spark  of  that  biu-ning  fire  which  is  God 
himself. '  '||  It  is  a  part  of  that  which  in  its  fullness  exists  in  God 
only.T[  "  It  is  a  scion  or  plant  of  the  divine  righteousness,  essen- 
tially implanted  and  established  in  the  heart  of  man.  "**     "  It  is, ' ' 


*A812. 

t  Ibid. 

i  See,  e.g.,  D  C37  sqq.,  C  402,  A  -121-4. 

§  B  C3S  sg. 

li  A  814cd.  Cf.  the  equally  striking  statement  in  A  420:  "Daher  komnit  der 
wahre  gerechtmachende  christliche  Glauhe  aus  Gottes  Natur,  Selbstand  und 
Wesen,  -nie  er  denn  vor  Anfang  der  Well  samt  andem  geistlichen  Gaben  in  Gott 
verborgcn." 

1  Cf.  D  379.  Tlic  analogy-  of  the  sun  shedding  its  beams  -n-ithout  diminishing 
itself  is  here  repeated.  The  margin,  to  be  sure,  ■would  guard  against  our  speaking 
oi  &  parliciila  soh'.':  in  case  of  the  radiating  beams.  But  the  iUustratiou  itself ,  and 
the  other  statements  on  the  subject,  make  it  plain  that  faith  must,  as  the  logic  of 
his  system  requires,  be  conceived  as  a  substantive,  a  physico-spiritual  principle. 
How  closely  Luther  approximated  such  statements  may  be  seen  in  Hering, 
Luthcrs  Mystik,  pp.  97  sqq.,  170  sq.;  and  cf.  Domer,  Lehrc  von  der  Person  Christi, 
p.  631 ,  n.  1.  Schcnkel,  I.e.,  II,  p.  440,  compares  Schwenckfeld  in  this  respect  with 
Servetus  and  Osiander. 

**  D  380d. 


to  revert  to  the  favorite  mode  of  representation,  "a  stream  and 
radiance  of  the  heavenly  hght  and  fire  which  is  God  himself."* 

These  passages  will  abundantly  have  shown  how  impersonal  is 
Schwenckfeld's  conception  of  faith.  It  seems  at  times  to  be 
nothing  but  an  ethereal  substance  emanating  from  the  spirit-flesh  of 
the  glorified  Clu-ist.  It  is  produced  in  an  altogether  one-sided  and 
magical  mamier  by  a  divme  causality,  there  being  logically  no  place 
left  for  the  free  act  of  a  moral  agent.  Man  mdeed,  strictly  speaking, 
cannot  believe.  He  is  to  wait  in  a  state  of  passivity  until  the  im- 
plantmg  of  the  di\ine  life  has  been  effected;  faith  in  its  first  stage 
is  identified  with  regeneration.  The  strong  emphasis  laid  upon  the 
iiselessness  of  "means  of  gi-ace" — it  will  be  remembered,  however, 
that  here  too  the  practice  did  not  quite  keep  pace  with  the  theory — 
only  made  the  whole  process  of  salvation  appear  altogether  supra- 
rational. f  To  be  sure,  the  theory  admii-ably  served  the  one  pur- 
pose the  author  had  ui  mmd:  the  presence  of  such  a  faith  fills  the 
heart  with  unmistakable  signs  of  its  presence;  the  beam  reveals 
itself  by  its  ovm  light  and  warms  by  its  ova\  ardor.  Himself  not 
given  to  ecstatic  excesses,  he  at  least  left  the  door  wide  open  for  the 
vagaries  of  a  genuinely  mystical  subjectivism.  If  he  himself  was 
saved  from  a  more  radical  spiritualism  by  his  vigorous  and  well- 
controlled  religious  life  which  expressed  itself  in  the  normal  chan- 
nels of  service,  his  theory  of  the  mode  of  salvation  cannot  fairlj'  be 
said  to  do  justice  to  the  ethical  needs  of  men.  With  all  his  objec- 
tions, therefore,  to  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  doctrine  of  pre- 

*  D  634d.  Cf.  also  A  517,  C  2S0d,  D  145a.  It  was  such  mystical  language  that 
led  Mat.  Flacius  to  say  of  Schwenckfeld  (see  tlie  Verlegung  der  kurzen  Antwort 
des  Schwenckleldt,  1554,  p.  Ciii):  "Was  ist  er  aber  fur  ein  toller  Hciliger,  dem  das 
Wort  Gottes  das  Weseu  Gottes  selbst  ist,  das  Evangehum  ist  ihm  das  Wesen 
Gottes,  der  Glaube  ist  ihm  das  Wesen  Gottes,  unsere  Erueuerung  ist  ilim  das 
Wesen  Gottes,  unsere  Gerechtigkeit  vor  Gott  ist  ihm  das  Wesen  Gottes.  Alle 
Gaben  des  heihgen  Geistes  sind  ihm  das  Wesen  Gottes."  We  are  prepared  to 
realize  how  much  in  this  representation  is  true  and  how  much  is  a  caricature  of 
the  truth.  It  would  be  easy  to  treat  many  another  doctrine  of  Schwenckfeld  in 
tliis  fashion.  At  tlie  same  time  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  no  other  point 
so  openly  ^■ulnerable  in  his  system  as  his  conception  of  the  office  of  faith.  Here 
the  practical  religious  interests  that  ordinarily  held  him  back  from  the  logical 
extremity  of  his  principles  did  not,  and  could  not,  preserve  for  liis  mysticism  a 
truh'  ethical  significance. 

t  Cf.  the  passage  C  372:  "Wer  von  aussen  ein  und  durch  das  Aussere  in  das 

Innerc  -will    kommen,  der  versteht   nicht  den  Gnadenlauf Der  Mensch 

muss  alles  vergessen  und  fallen  lassen  und  zu  dem  Einsprechen  der  Gnaden  und 
aller  Dinge  ledig  gclassen  und  alien  Creaturen  genommen  sein,  ganzhch  Gott 

ergebcn Deswegen  ist    der   Gnaden    und   des  heiligen   Geistes   einiger 

SclJitt  und  Mittel,  darauf  er  in  die  stille  Seele  rutscht,  sein  allmachtiges  ewiges 
Wort,  so  ohne  Mittel  von  dem  Mund  Gottes  ausgcht." 


73 

destination  *  he  can  do  no  more  for  the  sinner  than  to  point  him  to 
a  faith  which  is  essentially  an  implanting  of  the  divine  substance, 
an  altogether  unpersonal  and  immtelligible  act  so  far  as  the  bene- 
ficiary is  concerned.  Here,  then,  the  two  extremes  meet — that 
which  he  regarded  as  the  one-sided  externalism  of  the  Lutheran, 
movement  and  that  to  which,  with  the  protest  of  his  mystical  piety 
against  all  religious  deadness  and  all  mechanical  ecclesiasticism,  he 
himself  went  when  he  made  faith  a  concrete  mgrafting  into  the 
heart  of  the  substantive  principle  of  divinity.  In  the  one  case,  as  in 
the  other,  the  ethical  needs  of  the  believer  were  jeopardized;  but 
whereas  in  Lutheranism  it  was  the  practice  that  failed  to  maintain 
itself  on  the  high  level  of  the  evangelical  theory,  in  Schwenckfeld 
the  defective  theory  of  faith  was  wisely  overruled  in  practice  by  a 
consideration  for  the  religious  welfare  of  the  believer.  And  just  as 
Luther,  in  liis  doctrine  concerning  the  mode  in  which  sacramental 
blessings  are  conferred,  made  the  phj'sical  organ  of  the  mouth  the 
channel  for  the  transmission  of  a  spiritual  benefit,  so  Schwenckfeld 
converted  faith,  a  strictly  spiritual  act,  into  a  vehicle  for  the  trans- 
mission of  a  hyperphysical  substance  which  none  the  less  must  some- 
how influence  the  body  as  well  as  the  soul. 

A  practical  illustration  of  the  difficulty  in  which  Schwenckfeld's 
theory  of  faith  involved  his  whole  system  may  he  fomid  in  his 
views  on  the  subject  of  the  salvation  of  the  Old  Testament  saints. 

From  all  that  has  been  said  it  would  appear  that  no  person  living 
before  the  time  of  the  incarnation,  i.e.,  before  this  mystical  or 
hyperphysical  flesh  of  Christ  came  into  existence,  could  feed  his 
soul  upon  the  true  bread  of  life,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  nothing 
other  than  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Son  of  man.  And  this  is  pre- 
cisely how  some  of  the  interpreters  have  represented  the  matter. 
Planck,  for  example,  declares  that  Schwenckfeld  explicitly  taught 
that  under  the  old  economy  no  one  was  or  could  be  saved.t 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Schwenckfeld  refused  to  place  the 
ceremonial  rites  of  the  Old  upon  the  same  plane  with  the  sacraments 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  latter  not  only  signify  or  symbolize  the 
spiritual  blessings,  but  they  actually  convey  them.  J  The  two  dis- 
pensations are  generically  different  in  that  the  Old  consists  in  "ex- 

*  Sec,  e.g.,  D  39Sff.,  412fT.,  420fT. 

^Geschichlc  d.  EntsleJaiyxg.  etc.,  V,  B.  IV,  pp.  119,  1S9,  192  sg.  Dr.  Hodge, 
System.  Thcol.,  II,  5S7,  v.-as  probably  follo\\ing  Planck  in  declaring:  "In  a  Send- 
bricf  written  in  1532,  in  which  he  treats  of  the  difference  between  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  economies,  he  says  that  under  the  former  there  was  no  saving  faith, 
and  no  justification,  and  that  all  the  patriarclis  had  therefore  perished  forever  " 

i  A  510. 


74 

ternal  divine  service,  promises,  carnal  justifications  and  external 
holiness,  and  is  a  sbadow  of  the  heavenly  blessings";  whereas  the 
New  consists  in  the  "spiritual,  true  justification  tlu-ough  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ."*  Baptism  is  therefore  not  a  Jewish  cleanshig.f 
He  finds  fault  with  Calvin,  Bullingcr  and  others  for  not  making  a 
sufficiently  broad  distinction  between  the  two  covenants.! 

The  fact  is,  however,  that  Schwenckfeld  u:iequivocally  taught 
the  salvation  of  all  Old  Testament  worthies,  and  that  too  according 
to  the  same  principles  that  obtain  in  the  new  dispensation,  that  is 
by  "faith"  in  the  divme-human  ]\Iediator.  To  be  sure,  one  loose- 
jointed  sentence  in  the  chief  letter  on  the  subject  seems  to  militate 
against  this  assertion:  "That  in  short  no  person  before  Christ 
entered  heaven,  or  was  able  to  receive  salvation;  that  all  holy 
fathers,  patriarchs  and  prophets  hoped  in  and  waited  for  Christ,  and 
by  faith  in  the  promises  were  preserved  hi  Abraham's  bosom. ' '  But 
not  only  does  the  margin  rightly  give  the  gist  of  the  passage,  "that 
no  person  has  been  able  to  enter  the  divme  glory  without  the  suf- 
fering of  Christ,"  but  the  letter  repeatedly  states,  what  is  likewise 
the  uniform  representation  elsewhere,  that  the  patriarchs  became 
participants  in  the  merits  of  Christ's  savmg  work.§ 

But  of  course  the  real  question,  again,  is  not  whether  Schwenck- 
feld at  times  taught  the  salvation  of  the  Old  Testament  samts,  but 
whether  he  could  with  logical  consistency  take  this  view  of  the 
problem.  Must  we  not  in  this  case  also  find  his  explicit  statements 
conflicting  with  the  basal  prmciples  of  his  philosophy  and  theology? 

*  B  593b. 

t  B,  Part  I,  p.  112S.  Cf.  the  entire  tliird  letter:  "Darin  bewiesen  wird  dass  die 
Sacramente  Cliristi  nicht  aus  dem  Gesetz  Mosi  genommen  noch  den  Ceremonien 
Oder  Sacramenten  des  alten  Testaments  mijgen  vergliclien  werden." 

i  C  521d.     Cf.  Kalmis,  Die  Lehrc  vom  Abcndmahl,  p.  402. 

§  A  p.  57  speaks  of  faitli's  bringing  Christ  into  the  heart  and  effecting  "one  sort 
of  forgiveness  of  sins,  grace  and  salvation  in  all  saints,"  "whether  at  the  begin- 
ning, middle  or  end  of  the  world."  Cf.alsop.  5Sb:  "Drum  so ist  deshalben  kein 
Unterschied  zwischen  den  gliiubigen  Vatern  im  alten  Testament  und  zwischen 
uns  die  wir  glauben."  The  difference,  therefore,  to  which  attention  is  called  in 
tlie  text,  does  not  concern  the  fate  of  true  behevers  under  the  two  covenants,  but 
rather  the  institutions,  the  sacraments  and,  in  a  word,  the  genius  of  the  two 
covenants  themselves.  In  the  former,  no  less  than  in  the  latter,  there  was  true 
"feeding  upon  Christ."  "Also  liaben  nun  die  Junger  Christi" — he  means  the 
disciples  at  the  time  of  the  institution  of  the  Supper,  i.e.,  before  the  glorification 
of  the  Redeemer's  body — "ja,  auch  alle  Vater  den  Leib  und  Blut  Christi  gegessen 
durcli  den  Glauben,  sowolil  als  ihn  noch  heutt  alle  Gluubigen  in  des  Herrn  Xacht- 
mal  essen  und  damit  gespciset  und  zum  ewigen  Leben  geniihrt  und  gesattigt 
werden."  Cf.  the  treatise,  Auskgung  des  Evang.  l/uce  XIV,  Vom  Ahendma}d  des 
Herrn,  pp.  H  iii  sqq. :  ' '  Dass  der  Herr  Christus  auch  mit  alien  Gliiubigen  von 
Anbeginn  der  Welt  sein  Abendmalil  hat  gehalten." 


The  solution  is  attempted  from  two  opposite  sides:  either  faith  is 
rationalized  so  that  it  is  no  longer  a  hyperphysical  substance  iden- 
tical with  the  divine  essence,  or  else  the  conception  of  salvation  is 
modified  so  that  the  Old  Testament  believers  were  the  subjects  of 
a  generically  different  redemption  dui'hig  their  sojom-n  on  earth. 
Sometimes,  indeed,  the  difficulty  is  simjily  evaded,  when,  e.g.,  the 
term  "faith"  is  given  the  further  capacity  of  having  no  necessary 
temporal  or  earthly  relationship  whatsoever.     "The  nourishing," 
that  is  of  the  faithful  before  Clu-ist's  birth,  ' '  is  before  God  beyond 
all  time  {aus  aller  Zeit)  and  consists  in  coelesiihus,  in  the  heavenly 
divine  essence,  and  takes  place  ui  this  world  only  through  a  true 
living  faith. '  '*    Schwenckfeld  made  much  in  this  connection  of  such 
formulas  as  ' '  the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world ' '  (Rev.  xiii.  8).     But  there  is  here  no  real  grappling  with 
the  problem  as  to  how  spu-itual  blessings  were  mediated  m  the  Old 
economy.     It  is,  moreover,  a  characteristic  of  genume  mysticism 
thus  to  unite  God  and  the  soul  without  any  dialectic  means.     Re- 
gardless of  the  assertion,  therefore,  that  the  faith  is  the  same  in 
both  dispensations,  save  that  in  the  former  it  was  secret  and  con- 
cealed, whereas  in  the  latter  it  is  revealed  and  open,t  it  was  natural 
for  Schwenckfeld  to  have  recourse  to  the  familiar  view  of  his  op- 
ponents, that  faith  in  the  case  of  the  patriarchs  was  ' '  the  assurance 
of  things  hoped  for"— that  is  to  say  a  strictly  personal  act,  avolmi- 
tary  trust  in  divinely  promised  blessings.J     It  could,  therefore, 
"make  all  futm-e  things  present,"  just  as  was  the  case  in  the  com- 
mon evangelical  conception  of  the  term.     On  the  other  hand,  where 
he  adliered  strictly  to  his  usual  definition  of  faith,  he  was  bound  to 
secure  the  salvation  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  by  the  only  other 
available    expedient— the    saving    process    must    be    idealized. 
The  patriarchs  must  be  represented  as  waitmg  m  the  "vestibule 
of  Hades,"  "as  in  a  prison," §  for  the  infusion  of  that  peculiar 
physico-spii-itual  principle  from  the  flesh  of  the  risen  and  deified 
Jesus  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  Schwenckfeld's  normal  concep- 
tion of  redemption.     Either  therefore  faith  becomes  for  the  time 
a  strictly  personal  act,  and  the  whole  mystical  theory  breaks  down 
at  the  point  of  its  contact  with  the  individual  moral  agent,  or  else, 
the  logic  of  the  system  being  preserved,  the  fathers  under  the  old 

*  A  655.  t  A  58b. 

}  Cf.  Heb.  xi.  1.  It  was  precisely  tWs  word,  v-rrdaraaic,  in  the  definition 
of  faith,  however,  that  led  Scliwenckfeld  to  conceive  of  tliis  divine  gift  as  a  sub- 
stantive and  non-personal  principle. 

§  Ada. 


76 

covenant    could    not   really    partake  of    this    hyperphysical  and 
unethical  salvation. 

With  this  exposition  of  Schwenckfeld's  view  of  faith  we  may 
conclude,  haAing  thus  traced  the  entire  circle  of  his  specu- 
lations so  far  as  they  bear  upon  his  participation  in  the 
eucharistic  controversy  of  his  age.*  We  have  sought  to 
interpret  the  man  m  the  light  of  the  historical  situation  in 
which  he  found  so  much  to  oppose,  and  then  in  the  light  of 
his  o^Ti  positive  contribution  to  the  solution  of  the  problem  that 
perplexed  him  and  his  contemporaries.  It  will  have  appeared,  no 
doubt,  that,  like  most  of  the  extremists  of  that  daj',  he  had  in  the 
facts  themselves  an  ample  justification  for  the  exercise  of  his  pro- 
testing spirit ;  but  that  he  likewise  failed  to  grasp  the  essence  of  the 
evangelical  reformation  in  the  full  depth  of  its  meaning,  and  there- 
fore failed  also  to  meet  the  necessities  of  the  case  with  a  superior 
message.  His  negations  were  more  timely  and  valuable  than  his 
affirmations.  His  diagnosis  did  him  more  credit  than  the  treatment 
he  prescribed.  An  ardent  champion  of  the  claims  of  subjective 
pietj'  and  the  exemplificatior  pf  the  religious  graces  m  daily  conduct, 
his  practice  not  seldom  revealed,  b)'  its  felicitous  mconsistency  with 
his  theorizing,  the  truly  Protestant  secret  of  the  adjustment  be- 
tween faith  and  works,  between  the  inner  activities  of  the  redeemed 
soul  and  its  outward  manifestations  in  the  sphere  of  all  commimal 
life.  A  strong  and  beautiful  character,  he  often  succeeded  in 
transcendmg  the  limitations  of  his  one  basal  error,  the  deification  of 
the  flesh  of  Clu'ist,  and  overcame  the  mystical  indefiniteness  of  his 
speculations;  and  where  he  could  not  do  this  to  the  satisfaction  of 

*  Such  minor  facts  as  his  peculiar  empha-sis  upon  the  necessity  of  strict  eccle- 
siastical discipline  and  sincere  piety  on  the  part  of  the  pastors  administering  the 
Supper  may  be  passed  over  in  silence.  The}'  simply  afford  another  illustration 
of  what,  we  hope,  has  become  thoroughly  clear  from  the  discussion,  that  this 
radical  reformer  was  governed  on  all  practical  questions  by  such  deeply  religious 
interests  that  time  a!id  again  he  laid  stress  upon  considerations  wliich  must  be 
regarded  as  logically  incompatible  -n-ith  Ms  basal  principles.  For  if  God  needs  no 
means  of  grace  and  never  confers  gifts  through  creaturely  instrumentalities,  why 
should  such  rigorous  Donatistic  standards  be  applied  to  preacher  or  communicants? 
If  faith  operates  magically,  apart  from  all  external  and  sensible  realities,  if  in 
essence  it  is  an  emanation  from  God,  what  need  is  there  of  regarding  either  the 
person  or  the  office  of  the  celebrant?  Here,  too,  the  devout  m.in  was  much  better 
than  his  ill-phrased  creed.  Equall)'  unnecessary  is  the  inquirj-  concerning  the 
effects  of  the  Supper  upon  unljelievers.  Not  having  the  "spiritual  discernment  of 
faith, ' '  they  cannot  receive  the  inner  sacramental  gift ;  they  cannot  take  part  in  the 
feast  witliout  being  condemned,  even  though  the  act  of  communing  may  symbol- 
ize to  tlieir  own  or  other  minds  tlie  significance  of  the  redemptive  fact  of  the 
Sa^^our's  death.     Cf.  B  7Sa  and  A  800a. 


77 

his  opponents,  he  yet  succeeded  bj'  the  sheer  force  of  his  pietj"  in 
winning  to  himself  a  band  of  devoted  followers  who  might  indeed 
in  years  to  come  forget  some  of  his  theological  vagaries,  but  who 
would  ever  sacredly  cherish  the  heritage  of  his  prayers  and  labors  iu 
behalf  of  a  pure  evangelical  faith,  a  truly  spiritual  Clu-istianity. 

But  the  ultimate  test  must  take  account  chiefly  of  the  positive 
rather  than  of  the  merely  negatiA'e  contribution  which  Schwenck- 
feld  tried  to  make  toward  the  solution  of  the  great  problem,  the 
central  question  of  human  existence,  the  clear  positing  of  which  was 
the  genesis  of  the  Reformation — that  of  the  soul's  relation  to  God. 
We  have  seen  how  largely  Schwenckfeld  seems  to  have  answered 
the  question  in  the  very  terms  of  the  Protestant  theology,  m  the  very 
language  of  the  Bible.  It  is  hoped,  however,  that  the  exhibition  of 
the  apparent  affinities  and  similarities  between  Schwenckfeld  and  his 
evangelical  opponents  will  have  served  by  contrast  to  sharpen  and 
deepen  the  impression  which  we  believe  his  woi-ks  must  make  upon 
every  candid  reader — that  of  the  radical  and  irreconcilable  difference 
between  his  and  the  traditional  conception  of  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity. With  the  fondness  of  a  genuine  mystic  to  express  his 
thoughts  and  feelings  in  the  hallowec.  texts  of  Scripture,  he  failed 
to  see  how  illogical  and  impossible  it  was  to  make  these  words  bear 
the  strain  of  a  system  of  speculation  which  might  indeed  preserve 
the  supernatural  and  Clu-istocentric  character  of  the  divine  revela- 
tion, but  which  could  not  do  justice  to  the  fimdamentally  ethical  and 
personal  needs  of  the  religious  subject.  In  his  polemic  against  the 
external  ecclesiasticism  of  his  age,  he  was  justified  in  comuig  for- 
ward as  a  spokesman  for  the  rights  of  that  uiward  religious  freedom 
which  could  discard  all  priestly  mediation  and  emphasize  the  gi'eat 
truth,  that  the  soul  can  and  maj-  enjoy  dii'ect  commmaion  M-ith  the 
Infinite  Spirit.  But  after  all  allowances  are  made  on  the  score  of 
the  harsh  angularities  of  his  diverse  opjjonents,  his  manifold  ui- 
consistencies  in  attempting  to  give  his  practical  reform  endeavors  a 
speculative  basis  must  likewise  be  freely  acknowledged.  That  he 
was  a  mj-stic  was  his  strength  and  glory:  it  was  precisely  his  mysti- 
cism that  gave  him  kinship  with  the  master-minds  of  his  age,  above 
all  with  Luther  and  Calvm,  and  enabled  him,  albeit  in  a  one-sided 
and  critisable  manner,  to  express  many  an  evangelical  pruiciple 
with  an  unsurpassed  clearness  and  force.  But  that  in  his  polemic 
zeal  he  permitted  himself  to  sacrifice  the  biblical  basis  of  a  genuinely 
Christian  mysticism,  this  was  the  sjieculative  error  that  exposed 
his  whole  system  to  attack  and  detracted  from  its  many  practical 


78 

excellencies.*  For  this  cardinal  theorj'  of  the  deification  of  the  flesh 
or  humanity  of  Christ,  and  the  necessity  of  identifymg  redemption 
with  a  substantive  ingrafting  into  the  soul  of  the  very  essence 
of  the  divme-human  nature  of  Christ,  continually  interfered 
with  his  attempt  to  vindicate  a  place  for  the  concrete  reali- 
ties of  the  historical  Church.  The  Bible  was,  to  be  sure, 
the  book  of  books;  but  so  sharp  was  the  separation  between 
the  inner  and  outer  Word,  and  so  one-sided  was  the  empha- 
sis upon  the  absolute  necessity  and  the  all-sufficiency  of  the 
former  to  the  verge  of  a  possible  exclusion  of  the  latter,  that  in 
spite  of  his  reverence  for  the  Scriptures  and  his  willingness  in  prac- 
tice to  make  them  the  norm  of  his  faith  and  conduct,  he  really  had 
no  logical  warrant  for  his  religious  devotion  to  the  sacred  text:  there 
was  no  adequate  nexus  between  the  letter  and  the  spirit,  between 
the  "historical"  and  the  "spiritual"  miderstanding  of  the  Word. 
Much  less  can  his  doctrme  of  the  sacraments  commend  itself  to  the 
reason.  The  Lmier  transaction  has  no  necessary-,  not  even  a  dialec- 
tic, comiection  with  the  outward  rite.  Yet  again  we  are  counseled  to 
study  the  true  pm'pose  of  the  eucharist,  and  to  console  om-selves 
with  the  assm-ance  that  "m  the  use  of  the  sacrament  by  faith" 
grace  is  communicated.  But  when  this  middle  term  "faith"  is  in- 
vestigated, we  are  once  more  forced  to  conclude  that  however  strongly 
Schwenckfeld  wished  to  remain  loyal  to  the  confessedly  di\ane  insti- 
tutions of  the  Chmxh,  he  had  no  logical  ground  for  regarding  the 
sacraments  as  anj-thing  more  than  sj'mbolic  and  didactic  cere- 
monies. The  right  use  of  them,  like  the  right  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptm-es,  demands  faith;    but  faith  itself  is  a  gift  of  God  that 

*  The  application  of  the  temi  "ni}'stical"  to  those  mysterious  elements  in 
Christianity  which  pertain  to  the  direct  contact  and  union  between  the  finite  and 
the  Infinite  Spirit  is  too  common  and  convenient  to  be  ruthlessh"  set  aside. 
Scliwenckfeld,  it  is  true,  reared  his  mysticism  upon  a  fault}'  doctrinal  basis,  and 
therefore  he  also  exceeded  the  bounds  of  propriety  even  in  his  negative  attitude 
toward  the  importance  of  the  historical  Church  and  her  means  of  grace.  But 
nothing  is  gained  by  simply  branding  him  as  a  mystic.  The  best  elements  of  his 
' '  mysticism ' '  simply  reflect  the  deepest  verities  of  the  Cliristian  religion  as  set 
fortli  by  John  and  Paul,  by  Athanasius  and  Augustine,  by  Luther  and  Cahan. 
It  would  be  easy  to  find  in  all  of  these  -nTiters  precisely  the  same  "mystical 
indefiniteness"  that  appears  in  the  unfathomaljle  words  of  the  Saviour  to  liis  dis- 
ciples: "Abide  in  me, and  I  in  you,"  words  which  have  never  either  by  inspired 
or  uninspired  dialectics  been  resolved  into  any  simpler  or  more  fully  comprehen- 
sible terms.  On  the  general  subject  of  tlie  relation  of  mysticism  to  Christianity, 
see  Ullmann,  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums,  4th  ed.,  18.54,  and  his  article,  "Das 
Wesen  des  Christentums  und  die  Mystik,"  in  the  Thtohg.  Studien  iind  Kritiken, 
1852,  H.  3,  pp.  .'>3.5-614;  compare  especially  the  passages  cited  on  page  COO  from 
Cal\-iu's  Inslitutcs  to  show  the  truly  mystical  vein  in  this  great  theologian. 


79 

neither  requires  nor  admits  any  external  mediation— a  possession, 
therefore,  which  can  be  neither  increased  nor  diminished  by  using 
or  not  using  the  appointed  ordinance  of  worship.  The  Lord 
is  indeed  truly  present  at  his  table;  not  in,  with,  or  under  the 
elements,  nor  under  their  accidents,  but  to  the  faith  of  the  worthy 
communicant.  The  question,  however,  recm-s:  How  can  the 
presence  be  a  real  one,  in  the  sphitual  sense  of  the  term,  when  faith 
itself  is  reduced  to  a  finely  corporeal,  a  hyperphysical  yet  mechanic- 
ally actmg  effluence  from  God  through  the  deified  flesh  of  the 
Redeemer?  The  benefits  to  be  received  in  the  sacrament  may,  it 
will  be  remembered,  be  presented  almost  in  the  language  of  the 
Reformed  theologians.  Yet  how  different  in  Schwenckfeld  is  the 
significance  of  such  terms  as  redemption,  regeneration,  justifica- 
tion, eating  and  di'inkiug  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Son  of  man! 
"With  all  his  insistence  upon  the  true  humanity  of  Christ,  he  could 
not  logically  avoid  the  evil  consequences  of  his  theory  that  redemp- 
tion necessitated  a  deliverance  from  the  very  estate  of  creaturehood; 
his  system  has  a  profoiuidly  anti-natural  as  well  as  anti-personal 
tendency,  and  both  his  conception  of  human  nature  had  to  be 
modified  in  order  to  permit  a  real  mcarnation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  his  notion  of  personality  had  to  be  conformed  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  strictly  magical  and  unethical  operation  by  which 
God  makes  the  soul  a  "partaker  of  the  di%'ine  nature."  His 
fmidamental  irrationality,  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  became 
essentially  divine  and  yet  remained  truly  human,  pre.sented  alike  to 
reason  and  to  faith  an  impossible  basis  upon  which  to  rest.  A 
spiritualist  dominated  by  the  formulas  of  the  new-found  evangelical- 
ism, he  had  no  proper  place  in  his  system  of  speculations  for  the  per- 
son and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Herein  lies  the  difference  between 
him  and,  so  far  as  the  eucharistic  controversy  is  concerned,  his 
nearest  spiritual  kinsmen,  the  leaders  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
Both  he  and  they  sought  to  find  in  faith  the  psychological  nexus 
between  the  divine  blessing  and  the  sinful  soul;  but  whereas  they 
rose  to  a  clear  apprehension  of  the  specific  function  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  application  of  grace,  whether  through  the  sacraments  or  apart 
from  all  such  means,  Schwencldeld  was  compelled  by  the  logic  of  his 
primary  error  to  transform  those  genuinely  mystical  passages  of 
Scripture  that  teach  the  gracious  but  mysterious  operations  of  the 
Spirit  directly  upon  the  heart  into  a  highly  speculative  but 
false  nn'sticism.  He  labored  to  have  the  facades  of  his  structure 
present  the  familiar  characteristics  of  evangelical  orthodoxy,  and 
he  succeeded  in  making  the  edifice  serve  as  a  delightful  sanctuary 


so 

for  many  a  deeply  pious  natui-e;  but  he  could  not  with  all  his 
wealth  of  architectmal  ornamentation  conceal  the  weakness  of 
that  imposing  jjretension  that  was  everywhere  made  to  serve  as  the 
fomidation  for  the  building,  the  unscriptural  and  hrational  dictum 
that  the  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ  is  divinitized  yet  remains  essen- 
tially the  same. 

But  if  in  spite  of  this  basal  speculative  error  Schwenckfeld  could 
nevertheless  achieve  so  large  a  measure  of  real  success,  we  nmst  be 
prepared  to  estimate  at  their  true  worth  those  elements  of  his  sys- 
tem of  thought  and  those  factors  in  his  personal  influence  that  im- 
pressed so  man}'  of  his  contemporaries  with  the  excellence  of  his 
life  and  work.  His  noble  bhth,  the  gi'aces  of  his  person  and  the 
charm  of  his  manner,  his  eloquent  pleas  for  religious  toleration  and 
concord,  the  warmth  and  beauty  of  his  piety  doubtless  served  to 
disarm  criticism  aud  inspire  confidence.  Moreover,  the  almost 
feminme  receptivity  of  his  nature  had  led  him  to  try  to  approximate, 
as  best  he  could,  the  distinctive  peculiarities  of  the  new  evangelical 
message :  in  many  a  noble  paragraph  he  shows  how  deeply  he  had 
grasped  the  inmost  essence  of  Protestantism.  Indeed,  the  skill 
and,  where  skill  availed  not,  the  imthinkijig  boldness  with  which 
he  sought  to  fuse  heterogeneous  and  really  incompatible  elements 
into  a  vmitar}'  system  of  theological  speculation  easily  conveyed  to 
congenial  spirits,  to  minds  of  a  contemplative  rather  than  a  logical 
cast,  the  impression  that  his  conception  of  Cliristianity  offered  not 
only  the  practical  advantages  of  the  conmron  understanding  of  the 
rediscovered  Gospel  but  also  the  superior  claims  of  a  deeper,  because 
more  mystical  and  less  one-sided,  interpretation  of  the  facts  of  our 
religious  experience.  With  all  his  exegetical  shortcomings,  more- 
over, he  not  seldom  enjoyed  a  spiritual  vision  that  revealed  with 
the  clearness  and  certamty  of  uituitive  knowledge  the  manifold 
deficiencies  of  his  opponents.  Like  all  spiritualists  he  was  a  stub- 
born protestant  agauast  the  existmg  order  of  thmgs,  and  therein, 
no  doubt,  is  to  be  found  his  noblest  service  to  the  cause  of  truth. 
On  the  fundamental  questions  concerning  the  relation  of  the  Spirit 
to  the  Word,  the  beariirg  of  religious  belief  upon  life,  and  the  nature 
of  the  Church  and  her  sacraments, — the  three  pomts  that  engaged 
the  chief  attention  of  all  the  leading  dissenters,* — he  uttered  judg- 
ments and  forged  arguments  which  historical  Christianity  has  ever 
showed  its  need  of  having  impressed  upon  its  inmost  consciousness. 
He  was  neither  a  creative  religious  genius  nor  even  a  talented 
ecclesiastical  organizer;  but  his  criticism  of  the  theology  and  the 

*  Cf.  Hegler,  Geisi  und  Schrijl  bci  Schaitcan  Fr.mc!;,  p.  16. 


81 

religion  of  his  day  was  a  valuable  ])ositive  contribution  to  the 
pvuitj'  aJid  strength  of  the  evangelical  movement  as  a  whole.  His 
best  ideas  are  those  of  a  genumely  Christian,  a  specifically  Protest- 
ant mysticism,  and  these  truths  need  emphatic  republication  in 
every  age  that  is  oppressed  with  an  external  ecclesiasticism  or  a  life- 
less orthodoxy.  His  mysticism  had  its  ample  justification,  as  a 
critical  and  protestmg  force,  both  in  the  facts  of  the  divine  revela- 
tion and  in  the  events  of  contemporary  history.  If  he  failed  of 
thorough  success  in  his  o\va  time,  and  if  the  Church  since  then  has 
found  little  use  for  some  of  the  fantastic  elements  of  his  mysticism, 
it  is  only  because,  like  the  more  radical  dissenters,  though  not  to  the 
same  extent,  he  failed  to  appreciate  the  best  that  his  contempo- 
raries had  already  achieved,  and  to  realize  the  historic  necessities  of 
the  ca.se  with  which  he  was  called  upon  to  deal — the  necessitj-  of  a 
truly  rational  faith,  a  genuuiely  scientific  theology,  that  must  serve 
as  the  guide  to  ethical  conduct;  the  necessity  of  the  objectively  fixed 
Word  that  must  repress  the  excesses  of  mere  subject i\'ism;  and  the 
necessity  of  the  divineh"  established  Church  that  must  after  some 
sort  have  real  means  of  gi-ace.  His  mysticism,  indeed,  bravely 
sought  to  cope  "nith  these  stern  necessities  of  the  situation.  By 
the  nature  of  the  case,  however,  onlj^  a  partial  success  could  be 
achieved.  But  the  measure  of  this  success  is  a  noble  historic  monu- 
ment to  the  amount  of  spiritual  truth  which,  despite  the  errors  -n-ith 
which  it  was  combined  in  his  heterogeneous  system,  exerted  so 
beneficent  an  influence  upon  his  diverse  opponents  as  well  as  upon 
the  generations  of  his  noble  followers. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012  01197   7750 


DATE  DUE 


gaylobd 


#3523PI 


Printed  in  USA 


